Support NeoGAF

[Nydius]

I intend on voting for Bernie in the 2016 Virginia Primaries but I just don't think he's got a realistic chance of becoming the Democratic Party nominee. I think he would have had a much better chance before the Citizens United ruling.

If he doesn't make it to the general election, I'm going to give him my write-in vote.

 

[Karsticles]

Didn't say he was racist just, he took a whole minute to go around the town for a simple yes or no question. That spoke volumes to me.

That's how the man talks. About everything. He gave a very clear and eloquent answer.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't see how this should sway your vote, though. I don't believe Clinton has made comments in any way more progressive than that. In fact, a lot of her statements are even more suspect.

But more importantly, Bernie Sanders will help minorities more than Clinton will. His hesitation may "speak volumes", but I think that his voting record is much more important. In his twenty-five years in congress, he has defended affirmative action, supported police and prison reform, fought to end the war on drugs, voted to give 84 billion dollars to HBCUs, tried to reduce tuition to all state universities, professed his love for a Canadian-style health care system, and has devoted most of his legislative career defending working-class Americans from being abused and neglected by Republicans and congress.

When Hillary Clinton was campaigning for Barry Goldwater, Bernie Sanders was participating in the Civil Rights Movement. Obviously, who you vote for is your choice, but I am admittedly surprised that you're sticking with Clinton.

I'll preface this by again saying I'm not a Sanders supporter, and don't think there's anything wrong with supporting Hillary long term. Ultimately most of us will be voting for her in November 2016, and if you're a liberal who refuses to because your perfect candidate didn't win you're an idiot. The stakes are too high for purity tests, with three...maybe four Supreme Court Justice seats on the line among other things.

Earlier today #BlackLivesMatter activists hijacked a Netroots townhall meeting and made it impossible for Sanders and O'Malley to have a constructive conversation.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarra...s-presidential?utm_term=.oqQ5EjMBE#.ahgAdPvzA

Sanders received groans and protests for not giving "skin specific" solutions to problems facing the black community. While I understand and agree that a "rising tide raises all boats" view doesn't work as well with black people given the structural and institutional barriers we face, I still find the activists' argument to be stupid. As I stated earlier, Sanders has spent 50 years supporting:

-Civil Rights
-Criminal justice reform
-Worker protections/rights
-Jobs programs
-Voter rights (renewing the VRA)
-Education reforms
-Infrastructure programs
-Increase to the minimum wage

Can someone explain to me how the fuck none of this helps black people? What "skin specific" policy is there which only helps black people? I'm sure as hell not aware of any. The help I listed as well as others such as bank loan reforms help working class people, poor people, and the middle class. In what world does criminal justice reform not help black people, for instance? Or increasing the minimum wage. Or any host of other policies that are aimed at the working and middle class.

A few months ago Bernie was taking heat for not saying "Black Lives Matter." He's taking heat from others here for allegedly dodging a question on apologizing for slavery, among other things. This just baffles my mind and really highlights the lack of understanding and focus policy has in American politics. Giving lip service to a movement doesn't mean shit when compared to having a record of defending/supporting every tenet that movement stands for.

 

[Kusagari]

Didn't say he was racist just, he took a whole minute to go around the town for a simple yes or no question. That spoke volumes to me.

It speaks volumes that he tried to give a nuanced response instead of a one second feel good blurb?

 

[Byakuya769]

Nah saw his fuck shit interview about slavery. So I am good with hillary, she might be late but she isn't on some bullshit.

What was said? His rap sheet on civil rights is pretty exemplary, as he was in the mix of it all in the 60s as I understand it.

(Edit) that was a roundabout journey to what I heard as a non-committal, but ask Hillary the same question and what's the answer there?

 

[mercenar1e]

It speaks volumes that he tried to give a nuanced response instead of a one second feel good blurb?

the American public needs information in 15 second clips lol

 

[120v]

Huh, perhaps some would in order to "persuade" him, but generally speaking I sincerely doubt it. They'd pool and pour all their money together to another candidate that actually is open to their ideas and interests. Sanders simply doesn't seem a good fit for big (unethical) business. They stand for everything he's against.

the likely nominee could be ronald mcdonald and big money would still go in that direction. it's what big business does in every election... they claim a stake on every side

 

[Chariot]

Dude ask him would he apologize for slavery, he goes into politico "See what had happen was"

https://soundcloud.com/joemadisonth...ernie-sanders-responds-to-apology-for-slavery

Huh, he replied very well in my opinion.

 

[Aztechnology]

No, it wouldn't. Because he's against big money. His entire campaign has been designed as a "fuck you" to our disgusting system. He is trying to run with the interests of people, not the interests of our oligarchs.

He's the only candidate running not having a Super PAC. It'll be interesting to see who wins: the people and what they want, or what money wants. We're already living in the latter, and it's a disaster. I wonder if this next election will have us fully eclipse into an oligarchy without remorse.

Until most of us State Side actually start caring, actually start voting, actually start educating themselves then money will win. Frankly I don't think they do or will.

That being said, I will vote Bernie, and I will hope I'm wrong.

 

[FiggyCal]

OMG can't believe he said we should apologize for slavery. Is that what I was supposed to get rustled about?

 

[Souldriver]

the likely nominee could be ronald mcdonald and big money would still go in that direction. it's what big business does in every election... they claim a stake on every side

You're right I guess. Companies seem to hedge their bets in elections. But you have to admit that with Sanders, it wouldn't be the typical display of political donations, as some companies would double down on the "other candidate" as they'd deem it better to support an unlikely winner to a winner that doesn't support their interests at all.

 

[Arkeband]

Nah saw his fuck shit interview about slavery. So I am good with hillary, she might be late but she isn't on some bullshit.

This is such an idiotic and dishonest thing to post so early in the thread. Way to go.

I hope people dig and find out how hyperbolic you were being instead of taking your completely contextless post as truth.

The posts right above yours basically begged for the thread to not be derailed. So thank you for wasting no time.

 

[jtb]

Bernie is far more useful in congress than he ever could be as a president, but as a sideshow during this cycle, it's good having him around.

 

[T'Zariah]

No, it wouldn't. Because he's against big money. His entire campaign has been designed as a "fuck you" to our disgusting system. He is trying to run with the interests of people, not the interests of our oligarchs.

He's the only candidate running not having a Super PAC. It'll be interesting to see who wins: the people and what they want, or what money wants. We're already living in the latter, and it's a disaster. I wonder if this next election will have us fully eclipse into an oligarchy without remorse.

And he's a fucking moron for doing it.

There's being principled and then there's being stupid.

SuperPACs are necessary for the national elections. It's just the way it is.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I intend on voting for Bernie in the 2016 Virginia Primaries but I just don't think he's got a realistic chance of becoming the Democratic Party nominee. I think he would have had a much better chance before the Citizens United ruling.

If he doesn't make it to the general election, I'm going to give him my write-in vote.

Dude come on. You live in a swing state and you're going to throw your vote away on a write-in?

I can assure you when Bernie loses the primary he will enthusiastically endorse Hillary.

isidewith tells me I have 99% of my views in common with Bernie and 93% with Hillary and I would be very surprised if those numbers weren't similar for you and every other Bernie supporter. Vote for the Democratic nominee unless you want her to get Nadered.

 

[Damaniel]

Bernie has crossover appeal. He will pull in Libertarians and Conservatives. It's already happening.

Not a chance. This is the same argument that Ron Paul supporters made back in the day. See what good that did him.

I'd support him if he wins the primary, but if he does then we'll lose the general. That supposed crossover will never come, because no conservative or libertarian is ever going to vote for a self-described socialist.

 

[jtb]

And he's a fucking moron for doing it.

There's being principled and then there's being stupid.

SuperPACs are necessary for the national elections. It's just the way it is.

Eh. He can't win, he won't win. He knows that. Better to run a failed campaign with a point than a hollow and failed campaign.

 

[Foffy]

And he's a fucking moron for doing it.

There's being principled and then there's being stupid.

SuperPACs are necessary for the national elections. It's just the way it is.

I'd rather him be stupid and sincere instead of "sensible", greedy, and everything wrong with our political system.

If one needs a PAC to stand a chance, then this country absolutely deserves to burn to the ground.

 

[Nydius]

Dude come on. You live in a swing state and you're going to throw your vote away on a write-in?

I live in a city in a swing state that has been deep blue since before I was born 40 years ago. I hardly think my write in would matter either way. It won't be the difference between my Congressional district turning blue or red, it's going to be blue even if I stay home that day.

Edit: But you're right about the isidewith thing. I'm 93% Bernie, 87% Hillary.

 

[pigeon]

Bernie has crossover appeal. He will pull in Libertarians and Conservatives. It's already happening.

If this were actually true, it would be a great reason to not vote for Bernie. How is it supposed to be appealing that a candidate outside the Democratic mainstream is drawing support from the reactionary right? That sounds like a candidate to avoid at all costs.

 

[Third Strike]

I live in a city in a swing state that has been deep blue since before I was born 40 years ago. I hardly think my write in would matter either way. It won't be the difference between my Congressional district turning blue or red, it's going to be blue even if I stay home that day.

Edit: But you're right about the isidewith thing. I'm 93% Bernie, 87% Hillary.

If you live in Virginia, your vote will count. Virginia will be one of the few states that will determine who wins the White House.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I absolutely love Bernie.

If he somehow became the Dem nom, I'd enthusiastically vote. It'd be one of my happiest ballots cast. Finally someone that holds my views!

But he'd lose, and then some Republifuckan would be president, probably in a landslide, and we'd watch as the last eight years of progress are torn down.

America isn't ready for a proud socialist.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'd rather him be stupid and sincere instead of "sensible", greedy, and everything wrong with our political system.

If one needs a PAC to stand a chance, then this country absolutely deserves to burn to the ground.

no it does not. Please do not say this toxic rhetoric. Hillary should she win will be a champion for you. Don't give up my friend. SuperPACs are a necessary evil to fight the other side.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

no it does not. Please do not say this toxic rhetoric. Hillary should she win will be a champion for you. Don't give up my friend. SuperPACs are a necessary evil to fight the other side and if she wins we will finally have a chance to big money out.

That ship sailed a long time ago. Before I was old enough to vote. Probably before I was born.

Citizens United is just the end game for our corporate overlords. Until they can make literally buying the presidency legal.

 

[Foffy]

no it does not. Please do not say this toxic rhetoric. Hillary should she win will be a champion for you. Don't give up my friend. SuperPACs are a necessary evil to fight the other side.

Hard to believe that when she would not do much against the establishment that caused the 2008 recession. Unless we change the way the social game of politics is changed, any success people have will be founded in the failures and bugbears of a system metastasized in tumors. Don't spin this "necessary evil" shit: they are an absolute evil. No ifs, ands, or butts. But maybe money from the elite.

I know your avatar shows you absolutely clear bias, but please, save the spin. If we're in a society where money and monied interests control the social game, than that society will only become corrupt and decayed. It might as well die off.

 

[Zornack]

Can someone explain to me what's so evil about money in political campaigns? At the end of the day it's still voters that are voting. Take the money out of politics and you'll still have uneducated voters voting for poor reasons. Right now those poor reasons are a bombardment of ad campaigns and name recognition, but if tomorrow political spending was curtailed it's not like we'd suddenly have an educated, informed electorate.

 

[Cheebo]

Bernie Sanders supporters are what the Howard Dean supporters were in 2004.


It's going to be a pretty rude wake up call for them when he loses the primaries. And very quickly. "But look at the size of the rallies!" was the calling card of Ron Paul fans online too.

Latest poll numbers have him behind 40% still. Obama never was once anywhere close to that far behind. Especially at this point in the cycle. Candidates do not come back from deficits like that.

 

[Tenck]

This is such an idiotic and dishonest thing to post so early in the thread. Way to go.

I hope people dig and find out how hyperbolic you were being instead of taking your completely contextless post as truth.

The posts right above yours basically begged for the thread to not be derailed. So thank you for wasting no time.

Slayven always finds something wrong with anything related to black people. People should learn to ignore him.

 

[jtb]

Hard to believe that when she would not do much against the establishment that caused the 2008 recession. Unless we change the way the social game of politics is changed, any success people have will be founded in the failures and bugbears of a system metastasized in tumors. Don't spin this "necessary evil" shit: they are an absolute evil. No ifs, ands, or butts. But maybe money from the elite.

I know your avatar shows you absolutely clear bias, but please, save the spin. If we're in a society where money and monied interests control the social game, than that society will only become corrupt and decayed. It might as well die off.

This attitude is ridiculous because even if Bernie gets elected, he wouldn't have the authority or support necessary to change the system. The obstruction from both parties under a Bernie presidency would make Congress' last eight years look productive by comparison.

Hillary is a politician but that's also the job description.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Slayven always finds something wrong with anything related to black people. People should learn to ignore him.

While I'm not exactly with him on this particular argument.

Don't try to turn him into one of the many sideshow characters we have on GAF. Slayven isn't that.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I live in a city in a swing state that has been deep blue since before I was born 40 years ago. I hardly think my write in would matter either way. It won't be the difference between my Congressional district turning blue or red, it's going to be blue even if I stay home that day.

Edit: But you're right about the isidewith thing. I'm 93% Bernie, 87% Hillary.

If you live anywhere in Virginia your vote is a swing vote for the presidential election. It's not like there's a mini-electoral college that applies at the local level.

Hard to believe that when she would not do much against the establishment that caused the 2008 recession. Unless we change the way the social game of politics is changed, any success people have will be founded in the failures and bugbears of a system metastasized in tumors. Don't spin this "necessary evil" shit: they are an absolute evil. No ifs, ands, or butts. But maybe money from the elite.

I know your avatar shows you absolutely clear bias, but please, save the spin. If we're in a society where money and monied interests control the social game, than that society will only become corrupt and decayed. It might as well die off.

Hillary's litmus test for SCOTUS candidates is whether they support the Citizens United ruling or not. Given the current makeup of the Court that's the only way you're going to see any progress made on that front.

 

[Cheebo]

There is nothing wrong with supporting Bernie now. Have fun. But make sure to be there for Hillary come the general election. It is vital to make sure the Republicans do not win.

Many pulled the "more of the same card" about Gore and stayed home or voted third party. Look how well that worked.

Have your fun with Bernie now, but be there for Hillary when it comes down to the wire after the primaries are over. That is what is important.

I live in a city in a swing state that has been deep blue since before I was born 40 years ago. I hardly think my write in would matter either way.

I do not think you understand how the electoral college works. Your city being hardcore blue is meaningless. Each vote in the state is counted equally. The electoral college (outside of one state and it isn't a swing state) is a all or nothing state wide vote. Whether you vote for the democratic nominee in the fall WILL matter.

 

[Makai]

No, it wouldn't. Because he's against big money. His entire campaign has been designed as a "fuck you" to our disgusting system. He is trying to run with the interests of people, not the interests of our oligarchs.

He's the only candidate running not having a Super PAC. It'll be interesting to see who wins: the people and what they want, or what money wants. We're already living in the latter, and it's a disaster. I wonder if this next election will have us fully eclipse into an oligarchy without remorse.

You're just defining what "the people" want as what you want. Money does not vote. People vote. Sanders would win regardless of money if he were representative of the electorate, with all challengers far to his right. He's not, though.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

There is nothing wrong with supporting Bernie now. Have fun. But make sure to be there for Hillary come the general election. It is vital to make sure the Republicans do not win.

Many pulled the "more of the same card" about Gore and stayed home or voted third party. Look how well that worked.

Have your fun with Bernie now, but be there for Hillary when it comes down to the wire after the primaries are over. That is what is important.

Hell, I'm not even sure how "more of the same" is a bad thing coming off of the most progressive presidency of my lifetime. (32)

 

[FiggyCal]

Hillary's litmus test for SCOTUS candidates is whether they support the Citizens United ruling or not. Given the current makeup of the Court that's the only way you're going to see any progress made on that front.

I thought that was Bernie's. And anyway that is hard to believe considering the big money that's behind her.

Isn't Citizens United a red herring? I thought there was actually another case that was more at the core of big money in politics.

 

[Cheebo]

I thought that was Bernie's. And anyway that is hard to believe considering the big money that's behind her.

Isn't Citizens United a red herring? I thought there was actually another case that was more at the core of big money in politics.

It's hers. She has gone on the record about that. And of course she will appoint liberal judges. To assume otherwise is crazy. Presidents almost always get whoever they want on the court nominated in the end. Its very rare for it to not happen.

She has nothing to lose by nominating liberal judges. And yes, Hillary is clearly on the left side of things. Just ask the Republicans who despise her.

Hillary wants a pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-Obamacare judges. Those are clearly her views.

 

[Almighty]

Eh I still don't think he has a chance in hell, but fuck it after slightly thinking about it I might just vote for him in the primary and might even go one step further and write him in in the general. Luckily I can do that as I live in a deep red state so my vote for president in the general election means fuck all if it isn't a republican. As hypocritical as this might sound those in the swing states(aka the ones that matter) best not do that same fuckery. I would hate to be stuck with Jeb for at least 4, but probably 8 years because some fools decided to make the perfect the enemy of the good here. Especially since putting some more liberals on the Supreme Court is pretty much out only way to fix some of our problems in the near future.

 

[BlackSalad]

I'm going to the event in phoenix tonight! Pending the dust storm that is apparently moving through. Hopefully I can find parking downtown :S

 

[FiggyCal]

It's hers. She has gone on the record about that. And of course she will appoint liberal judges. To assume otherwise is crazy. Presidents almost always get whoever they want on the court nominated in the end. Its very rare for it to not happen.

She has nothing to lose by nominating liberal judges. And yes, Hillary is clearly on the left side of things. Just ask the Republicans who despise her.

Hillary wants a pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-Obamacare judges. Those are clearly her views.

I don't doubt that she would appoint liberal justices. That is one of the reasons I wouldn't mind her winning the presidency over a republican. But I do still find it hard to believe she, herself, is all about getting money out of politics.

 

[Foffy]

You're just defining what "the people" want as what you want. Money does not vote. People vote. Sanders would win regardless of money if he were representative of the electorate, with all challengers far to his right. He's not, though.

I am referring to policies and ideas more generally with that comparison, not the outright person who gets elected. So much of what seems obvious to do in this country is caught up with monied interests, which is winning. And Hillary simply has more in line with those interests than Bernie, and it's enough that even if she and him have very similar ideas, it's that division that I feel very offput by her. She comes off as disingenuous, as someone who matches the political climate at the time, and that cannot be said of Sanders.

What I want doesn't mean that's what is. I'd want a reasonable society. That's not what we have at all. Anyone who thinks we do is living in a Truman Show. And I imagine in the very likelihood that Hillary wins, that trajectory will seldom change. Of course, it can get worse with nearly every Republican candidate, but I imagine we're in a scenario where things still must get worse before they get better. How much worse is the question.

 

[ghst]

Didn't say he was racist just, he took a whole minute to go around the town for a simple yes or no question. That spoke volumes to me.

maybe he was worried that some hair trigger nutjob was going to call him out on it on a message board so he had to be careful.

 

[T'Zariah]

I don't doubt that she would appoint liberal justices. That is one of the reasons I wouldn't mind her winning the presidency over a republican. But I do still find it hard to believe she, herself, is all about getting money out of politics.

Why is that so hard to believe?

She'd be the PRESIDENT. It doesn't get much higher than that. If she was the factor of getting money out politics do you have any IDEA how enormous her legacy for this country would be?

FDR/Lincoln level.

 

[Cheebo]

I don't doubt that she would appoint liberal justices. That is one of the reasons I wouldn't mind her winning the presidency over a republican. But I do still find it hard to believe she, herself, is all about getting money out of politics.

Just because she uses the system doesn't mean she likes the system. She just wants to win. Obama took oodles of money from these types as well and utilized Super PACs as well yet been on record on hating Citizens United.

They use the system because if they didn't they would lose and be drowned out by the Republicans who will vastly take advantage of it.

 

[GutsOfThor]

Bernie Sanders supporters are what the Howard Dean supporters were in 2004.


It's going to be a pretty rude wake up call for them when he loses the primaries. And very quickly. "But look at the size of the rallies!" was the calling card of Ron Paul fans online too.

Latest poll numbers have him behind 40% still. Obama never was once anywhere close to that far behind. Especially at this point in the cycle. Candidates do not come back from deficits like that.

Pretty much this. I like Bernie but no way in hell does he have a chance at winning the presidency. It seems to me he just excites the Democratic base but that is not enough to win elections.

 

[Cheebo]

Pretty much this. I like Bernie but no way in hell does he have a chance at winning the presidency. It seems to me he just excites the Democratic base but that is not enough to win elections.

Yep. Bernie is a fantastic senator. And will continue to be for hopefully a long while.

 

[Kard8p3]

Idk why you guys are citing low % as a reason Sanders will lose. Wasn't he at like 5 percent in April and is around 25 now? We still have many months to go.

 

[pigeon]

I don't doubt that she would appoint liberal justices. That is one of the reasons I wouldn't mind her winning the presidency over a republican. But I do still find it hard to believe she, herself, is all about getting money out of politics.

Why not? From a pragmatic point of view, Democrats just have less money than Republicans. Whether she's an idealist or just wants to win elections, she should support reducing money in politics.

 

[DarthButcher]

If I get a chance to ask a question, anything you guys think I should ask?

 

[Quazar]

If I get a chance to ask a question, anything you guys think I should ask?

What about plans for people with current student debt?

 

[NeoXChaos]

Idk why you guys are citing low % as a reason Sanders will lose. Wasn't he at like 5 percent in April and is around 25 now? We still have many months to go.

yes but he is going to hit a wall. That wall is probably between 30-35% of the vote in say IA and NH. If we extrapolate that nationally that % will likely fall as the voters become more diverse as the primary goes on. You can figure out the end result from there.