Support NeoGAF

[Jeevesmeister]

The stronger Bernie gets he better. He doesn't even need to win to win. The whooping amount of approval he got after starting in the single digits just by campaigning without smoke and mirrors is enough to show everyone the direction the people want. It will show yhe one who will actually be president even if Bernie won't and it will give him a pretty heavy political punch in the future since by then people know him and know how much people were ready to bend their knees to him instead to Hillary.

And in the best case he takes the throne himself and can - even in the worst case - keep the USA from doing a lot of stupid stuff. And in the best case he is going to argue. I assume a lot of repuplicans have enough of the political childish shit and want things to get done already. I feel that he could get a lot of people to cooperate because he is following his own ideals instead of petty party agendas.

Seriously. A lot of people writing him off aren't looking at just how much time is on the board and just how much the American people are really willing to groan past an unyielding spew of "Yaaaas, Hillary"/Snapchat bullshit/3 emojis or less in such a painful attempt to try and connect with younger voters that shows she herself doesn't have the confidence to try and energize the base.

Hillary won't survive the Republican Hate Machine. From the Top Secret e-mails fuckup (you think they won't dedicate millions to advertising what a colossal shitshow this is?) to pointing out her hypocrisy on BLM/mass-incarceration to anything they can dig up, in a general they will shred her to pieces, and she can't rally the actual voters to get behind her, having to rely on the threat of another Republican presidency to put the gun to our heads and force people to vote won't play out.

Anything can happen in a primary and a great number of people put hard bets on Hillary just walking into the nomination back in 2008, and will break their back stretching for reasons why this is the case again. There's still half a year before the first actual primary and if Bernie can play his cards right and get his name out there, he'll be able to pull ahead as an actual progressive (Hillary bringing NCLB to colleges is fucking criminal, don't get me started) that is willing to address the actual concerns of the voters.

 

[GnawtyDog]

You have to understand from an outsider perspective, everything in your grey area looks like black or white to me (whichever is supposed to be the negative end of your spectrum).

The only answer to healthcare is Universal healthcare, anything else isn't acceptable.

She's running on that I believe...

But no matter.... Dems would need Sen. majority least, or House majority etc and martial law with a standing army ready to go to make Universal Healthcare rule of the land in the next 8 years. The healthcare system is broken and corrupt and there is A LOT of money on the line, and the livelihood of A LOT of people on the line.....the industry is humongous.

It will be glorious to watch it unfold really --- hoping at the same time the country doesn't plunge into chaos......

 

[Principate]

And the question is WHY do they donate to the one they think will win? What do they gain? If the likely winner claims they will stand up against insurance companies and you're an insurance company, why donate to them?

It's not quite as simple as that going after insurance companies is fine if they don't target that company specifically. Obliterating he rest of the competition may actually be a positive and obviously if they honestly believe there will be not net-gain to it, they will pull the support.

 

[GnawtyDog]

The stronger Bernie gets he better. He doesn't even need to win to win. The whooping amount of approval he got after starting in the single digits just by campaigning without smoke and mirrors is enough to show everyone the direction the people want. It will show yhe one who will actually be president even if Bernie won't and it will give him a pretty heavy political punch in the future since by then people know him and know how much people were ready to bend their knees to him instead to Hillary.

And in the best case he takes the throne himself and can - even in the worst case - keep the USA from doing a lot of stupid stuff. And in the best case he is going to argue. I assume a lot of repuplicans have enough of the political childish shit and want things to get done already. I feel that he could get a lot of people to cooperate because he is following his own ideals instead of petty party agendas.

The audacity of hope is a helluva drug but, at some point you gotta quit on it. 2009 was it for me.

 

[Chariot]

The audacity of hope is a helluva drug but, at some point you gotta quit on it. 2009 was it for me.

True, politicans are known to disappoint. However Sanders held firm to his believes for decades and he isn't even a real democrat. He was independent until recently, right? Neiter he nor Trump have actual loyality to the parties they're running for.

 

[Tabris]

She's running on that I believe...

But no matter.... Dems would need Sen. majority least, or House majority etc and martial law with a standing army ready to go to make Universal Healthcare rule of the land in the next 8 years. The healthcare system is broken and corrupt and there is A LOT of money on the line, and the livelihood of A LOT of people on the line.....the industry is humongous.

It will be glorious to watch it unfold really --- hoping at the same time the country doesn't plunge into chaos......

Lol. See this is why she's in the lead. Most Americans are uninformed on her.

She is one of the most bought out democrats by the health care industry lobbyists out there. She tried to push Universal Healthcare (or America's version) back in 93 until she was silenced and then later bought out.

Her politics are for sale like 80% of Washington. Bernie Sanders is in the 20%, or at least to a much smaller degree.

 

[GnawtyDog]

True, politicans are known to disappoint. However Sanders held firm to his believes for decades and he isn't even a real democrat. He was independent until recently, right? Neiter he nor Trump have actual loyality to the parties they're running for.

I am not questioning Sanders will or ability I am questioning those he'll be working with. Those folks are the ones that matter...not so much the president per say when it comes to his own agenda.

Lol. See this is why she's in the lead. Most Americans are uninformed on her.

Uniformed of what? She's running on that period. "Universal Healthcare" becoming a reality is another thing altogether and whether she actually pushes for it or not - book is still out, no matter how hard you make a case against her trustworthiness on this - even in the case that you turn out to be right.

Universal Healthcare doesn't happen just because she (President X) wants it to happen. Obama would of probably ran for it or gotten it done if he believed it was politically feasible.

In short....Congress must also want it to happen (Dem majority somewhere (Hourse and/or Senate)) and the industry must be willing to bend backwards to allow it - Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and even your normal doctors nationwide making a killing for just greeting you at the door. And Wallstreet will have their say too.

 

[Tabris]

Question as I don't know much about the political law in the US, but what would stop the following:

1) Get elected.
2) Use executive actions on "radical" (normal in other countries) ideas like universal healthcare, living wages, education changes, tax code changes, campaign donation rules, infrastructure spending.
3) Deal with the lawsuits against them waiting for the results
4) Get good results that sway Americans to voting for politicians that support those new executive actions changing the political power from corporations back to the people.

I guess I don't know what you can use executive action on and what you can't in the US.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Universal Healthcare (single-payer) will require a change in the taxcode which more or less requires Congress. It can't get passed by executive order I believe. Too complex.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care.htm

I would much prefer single-payer but "true" single-payer is out of the picture for the next 10 or so years. Keeping the ACA and any improvements Hillary can add on top of Obama's ACA is what's feasible. Hillary's "plan" is basically Obama's ACA on steroids...confusing as hell too.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/hillary_clinton_on_s.php

 

[KHarvey16]

Lol. See this is why she's in the lead. Most Americans are uninformed on her.

She is one of the most bought out democrats by the health care industry lobbyists out there. She tried to push Universal Healthcare (or America's version) back in 93 until she was silenced and then later bought out.

Her politics are for sale like 80% of Washington. Bernie Sanders is in the 20%, or at least to a much smaller degree.

If all that corporate money and influence rusults in the 11th most liberal voting record in congress I say keep the money flowing.

 

[GusBus]

You are on an internet forum filled with Bernie Sanders key demo. Of course Bernie is going to appear to have a lot more support with 22 year olds who love people who peddle simple solutions to complex problems and support super-liberal positions that are impossible to enact in the current congress.

This.

Barring a catastrophe Hillary will win the nomination. The Republican shit show will likely yield a candidate who cannot compete in key demographics or win toss-up states.

 

[Tabris]

Universal Healthcare requires political courage. There's a good chance the person who brings it about won't be voted back in and it may hurt them in their future political, corporate, and/or law career.

Tommy Douglas, the Canadian who brought Universal Healthcare to Canada, had an extremely hard fought political battle with numerous opponents ranging from medical establishment, physicians, and political entities. He and his successor were defeated due to their pushing of Universal Healthcare.

While Medicare was implemented, the political turmoil did lasting damage to the Lloyd government, contributing to its defeat at the hands of Ross Thatcher's Saskatchewan Liberal Party in the 1964 provincial election. Medicare was later extended to all provinces and territories in Canada as a result of the Saskatchewan experiment.

It was political courage that was required on both him and his party. And now Tommy Douglas was posthumously voted by a popular vote as the Greatest Canadian Ever. That's how important Universal Healthcare is to us.

Hillary Clinton isn't this kind of politician, but Bernie Sanders may be. He may have the political courage.

 

[danm999]

Question as I don't know much about the political law in the US, but what would stop the following:

1) Get elected.
2) Use executive actions on "radical" (normal in other countries) ideas like universal healthcare, living wages, education changes, tax code changes, campaign donation rules, infrastructure spending.
3) Deal with the lawsuits against them waiting for the results
4) Get good results that sway Americans to voting for politicians that support those new executive actions changing the political power from corporations back to the people.

I guess I don't know what you can use executive action on and what you can't in the US.

Executive actions are usually smaller and more focused. Typically it will be something like the President telling a specific Federal agency how to enforce, or slightly amend its guidelines or regulations.

But you couldn't apply them to things more generally like establishing universal health care or infrastructure spending. That's far outside their purview. Not to mention, that since Congress controls the money, you wouldn't have any ability to make those changes in the first place, legal or not.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Polls (for now)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natio...the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

She is not.

Nothing is guaranteed.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I don't think she's guaranteed. Just the most likely. But it's incredibly early so I'm not trying to prognosticate. I just like to watch the show.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Hillary Clinton isn't this kind of politician, but Bernie Sanders may be. He may have the political courage.

Lol not sure why this is bolded and underlined. No politician that wants to be President for eight years will bring about Universal Healthcare in their first term. Bernie Sanders is old enough so that he won't have to worry about it since he probably wouldn't run for a second term. However, there's an almost zero chance he's the candidate anyway. Clinton can do it, but it wouldn't be until her second term.

If you guys want a better perspective of the race, look at betting websites. There's a financial incentive for those sites to be right.

 

[Konka]

Universal Healthcare requires political courage. There's a good chance the person who brings it about won't be voted back in and it may hurt them in their future political, corporate, and/or law career.

Tommy Douglas, the Canadian who brought Universal Healthcare to Canada, had an extremely hard fought political battle with numerous opponents ranging from medical establishment, physicians, and political entities. He and his successor were defeated due to their pushing of Universal Healthcare.



It was political courage that was required on both him and his party. And now Tommy Douglas was posthumously voted by a popular vote as the Greatest Canadian Ever. That's how important Universal Healthcare is to us.

Hillary Clinton isn't this kind of politician, but Bernie Sanders may be. He may have the political courage.

What in gods name are you talking about? The nature of the US Congress and electorate is vastly different than the Canadian system. The dems couldn't even get the public option passed and yet here you are on some idealistic voyage that ignores reality. I'm all for Universal Healthcare but you're living in lala land if you think its such an easy feat to pass in the US.

FDR tried, until it was obvious it would sink the New Deal.
Truman tried and it failed miserably.
Clinton tried and it ushered in a huge republican midterm victory.
Obama tried and succeeded with the ACA which has vastly improved health care in this country and implemented the largest expansion of medicaid to date. And it cost him the entirety of his political capital to get it done, resulting in a massive republican primary victory and gridlock.

I also have the question what your notion of Universal Healthcare is. Is it single payer? Because that isn't the only option for UH. The insured rate is 90.8% and would have been even higher without the supreme court decision that neutered medicaid expansion.

Switzerland has possibly the best healthcare system in the world and isn't single payer. So I'm not sure exactly what you're advocating for.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Universal Healthcare requires political courage. There's a good chance the person who brings it about won't be voted back in and it may hurt them in their future political, corporate, and/or law career.

Tommy Douglas, the Canadian who brought Universal Healthcare to Canada, had an extremely hard fought political battle with numerous opponents ranging from medical establishment, physicians, and political entities. He and his successor were defeated due to their pushing of Universal Healthcare.



It was political courage that was required on both him and his party. And now Tommy Douglas was posthumously voted by a popular vote as the Greatest Canadian Ever. That's how important Universal Healthcare is to us.

Hillary Clinton isn't this kind of politician, but Bernie Sanders may be. He may have the political courage.

And yet you elect Harper of all people to represent you. He's done wonders with your economy.

 

[dramatis]

Hillary won't survive the Republican Hate Machine. From the Top Secret e-mails fuckup (you think they won't dedicate millions to advertising what a colossal shitshow this is?) to pointing out her hypocrisy on BLM/mass-incarceration to anything they can dig up, in a general they will shred her to pieces, and she can't rally the actual voters to get behind her, having to rely on the threat of another Republican presidency to put the gun to our heads and force people to vote won't play out.

Anything can happen in a primary and a great number of people put hard bets on Hillary just walking into the nomination back in 2008, and will break their back stretching for reasons why this is the case again. There's still half a year before the first actual primary and if Bernie can play his cards right and get his name out there, he'll be able to pull ahead as an actual progressive (Hillary bringing NCLB to colleges is fucking criminal, don't get me started) that is willing to address the actual concerns of the voters.

It shows some tremendous lack of knowledge to think that Hillary won't survive the Republican Hate Machine. She's only been doing it for twenty years. Obviously she will finally fall because of emails, Benghazi, and Vince Foster. You should instead worry about whether or not Bernie can survive the Republican Hate Machine. After all, he's never had to experience that kind of thing in his cozy career in Vermont.

The arguments for how Bernie Sanders is going to win always base the core in one point: visibility. That is, the idea of "oh, if only more people knew of him, and if only those people could just hear him, he would win". As if politics run solely on personality and celebrity.

That's ignoring the actual data of the 2008 Democratic primaries and instead relying on "public perception" as some key ingredient for victory. The comparison to Obama and 2008 is frequently used, but lack the understanding of why this comparison isn't applicable. Choosing to ignore the 2008 data and focus on the "key events for victory" being "good debate performance" and "Iowa/NH victories!" is bad for Bernie Sanders and his campaign knows this.

Obama had 3 key things: strategy, ground game, and money. Bernie has none of those. Obama built a coalition of young voters, black voters, and moderates to win the primary. Bernie has only one of those right now. He's certainly not going to be able to get Hispanic voters; even in 2008 Hillary won most of them. Hispanic voters have only grown in number since then.

If I were you, I'd sign up for the Bernie campaign as a volunteer and start making hundreds of phone calls daily right now. Coasting on the idea that visibility is Bernie's only problem is just asking to have your dreams crushed. And the worst part is, you'd blame everything but yourself and your choice candidate.

 

[DrFaustPhD]

I'm still holding out for Bernie, and still think he has a legit chance to get the Democratic nomination. I've encountered very few people that actively like Hilary Clinton, mostly just an apathetic acceptance of her.

 

[Chariot]

I'm still holding out for Bernie, and still think he has a legit chance to get the Democratic nomination. I've encountered very few people that actively like Hilary Clinton, mostly just an apathetic acceptance of her.

"Apathetic Acceptance" should become her election slogan and the name of a one hit wonder metalband.

 

[Aiustis]

Because at least for Ohio, Kasich is pretty much the only way it's not going to swing to the dems.

 

[Days like these...]

"Apathetic Acceptance" should become her election slogan and the name of a one hit wonder metalband.

Or "At least she'll appoint a liberal justice (maybe)"

 

[HylianTom]

Or "At least she'll appoint a liberal justice (maybe)"

I'm sorry, but it's delusional to think she wouldn't. If 1992 Bill Clinton - measurably more conservative than the Hillary Clinton of 2015 - could appoint the general counsel of the friggin' ACLU to SCOTUS in 1993, then Hillary will have no problem at the very least matching that.

If you had told me 20+ years ago that self-proclaimed "progressives" in 2015 would be doubting Hillary Clinton judicial appointments, I (and the vast majority of liberals) would've laughed you out of the room. This "maybe" bullshit is grasping at its finest.

 

[soleil]

It's not quite as simple as that going after insurance companies is fine if they don't target that company specifically. Obliterating he rest of the competition may actually be a positive and obviously if they honestly believe there will be not net-gain to it, they will pull the support.

If a candidate is serious about advancing the country towards single payor, ZERO health insurance companies would want that. At best, a health insurance company under single payor would be covering all the little, extra things. A niche market at best. At worst, a health insurance company under single payor would go out of business.

There are zero health insurance companies that would benefit from single payor.

So anytime a health insurance company is backing a candidate, it would take an incredibly naive person to think that candidate is going to take us closer to single payor. Even the ACA mandated MORE money into the hands of insurance companies, simultaneously giving millions of people a boost in that they are now covered, while insuring that in the long run, we're not getting anywhere near single payor. Small win for the people. Big win for them.

I'm sorry, but it's delusional to think she wouldn't. If 1992 Bill Clinton - measurably more conservative than the Hillary Clinton of 2015 - could appoint the general counsel of the friggin' ACLU to SCOTUS in 1993, then Hillary will have no problem at the very least matching that.

If you had told me 20+ years ago that self-proclaimed "progressives" in 2015 would be doubting Hillary Clinton judicial appointments, I (and the vast majority of liberals) would've laughed you out of the room. This "maybe" bullshit is grasping at its finest.

Hillary would enjoy more benefit of the doubt if she had progressive actions (not just stances or votes, as one takes no effort and the other can be cast symbolically when you already know the fate of the bill) to point at. As of right now, the only actions to look at are organizing efforts to help her husband pass those rather conservative pieces of legislation you mentioned. Not to mention that even the progressive stances she has taken have only been in reaction to public opinion leaning in that direction. And calling for the end of Citizens United while simultaneously benefiting from it won't gain her any benefit of the doubt. I know all the nuanced reasoning behind it, but you're still asking for benefit of the doubt without proof of her sincerity.

Better than Republicans who are holding out with positions of hate, but not good enough to be convincing to people who want to see it before they believe it.

Calling people delusional is not an adequate substitute for a record to prove your sincerity. You have to put yourself in their shoes and ask "How do I know she isn't lying?'

It's not personal, as they're holding everyone to that standard.

 

[Amir0x]

Seriously. A lot of people writing him off aren't looking at just how much time is on the board and just how much the American people are really willing to groan past an unyielding spew of "Yaaaas, Hillary"/Snapchat bullshit/3 emojis or less in such a painful attempt to try and connect with younger voters that shows she herself doesn't have the confidence to try and energize the base.

Hillary won't survive the Republican Hate Machine. From the Top Secret e-mails fuckup (you think they won't dedicate millions to advertising what a colossal shitshow this is?) to pointing out her hypocrisy on BLM/mass-incarceration to anything they can dig up, in a general they will shred her to pieces, and she can't rally the actual voters to get behind her, having to rely on the threat of another Republican presidency to put the gun to our heads and force people to vote won't play out.

Anything can happen in a primary and a great number of people put hard bets on Hillary just walking into the nomination back in 2008, and will break their back stretching for reasons why this is the case again. There's still half a year before the first actual primary and if Bernie can play his cards right and get his name out there, he'll be able to pull ahead as an actual progressive (Hillary bringing NCLB to colleges is fucking criminal, don't get me started) that is willing to address the actual concerns of the voters.

Address the concerns, not a one of which will ever actually be addressed thanks to Congress.

Wooo dreams. I mean it's telling that about the only thing we can say Bernie might be able to do, is redact one or two executive orders Ronald Reagan put in place and maybe say no to a hypothetical war that hasn't even been invented yet.

All of course a fever dream unable to explain how Bernie is going to actually get over the historic hurdle of being a self-described socialist in a country that views socialists less favorably than Muslims and Atheists, how Bernie has reached out to anyone but the most rabid of far-left Democrats, how he can get over that gap with Independents and Blue Dog Democrats - two vital voting demographics if he actually wants to win and not just jizz dreams all over the mattress - and how he's going to do that with all the charisma of a dying log. Because Hillary may not be the most engaging, but she's also not trying to open America's mind to one of the most radical shifts in American politics in decades.

It's no small wonder why idealists never actually have their ideals met, since they don't actually seem to understand how American politics works. Does any Bernie supporter actually have an answer to how this is going to be done? Anyone? Or are we just going to post more links to how "riled up" his far left college fanbase is? I support many more policies Bernie has than Hillary, but I simply know how the world works and will not waste my time on a non-starter.

 

[soleil]

Address the concerns, not a one of which will ever actually be addressed thanks to Congress.

Wooo dreams. I mean it's telling that about the only thing we can say Bernie might be able to do, is redact one or two executive orders Ronald Reagan put in place and maybe say no to a hypothetical war that hasn't even been invented yet.

All of course a fever dream unable to explain how Bernie is going to actually get over the historic hurdle of being a self-described socialist in a country that views socialists less favorably than Muslims and Atheists, how Bernie has reached out to anyone but the most rabid of far-left Democrats, how he can get over that gap with Independents and Blue Dog Democrats - two vital voting demographics if he actually wants to win and not just jizz dreams all over the mattress - and how he's going to do that with all the charisma of a dying log.

The possibility of a second Gulf War was not being discussed when Gore went up against Bush, and yet people are now using that to argue we should not do anything to risk splitting up Dem votes. So it's fair game to keep in mind that the next president could very well be facing questions of whether or not engage in war, and to what extent, etc. Obama already faced something decisions in Libya and Syria. It's not some made-up concern.

And yes, Bernie instead of Hillary would make a huge difference in the questions of war. Not only has he proven superior judgment (NO vote with the same information that led to her YES vote), but I like his overview that we should be involved in the Middle East, but not leading it.

 

[Amir0x]

The possibility of a second Gulf War was not being discussed when Gore went up against Bush, and yet people are now using that to argue we should not do anything to risk splitting up Dem votes. So it's fair game to keep in mind that the next president could very well be facing questions of whether or not engage in war, and to what extent, etc. Obama already faced something decisions in Libya and Syria. It's not some made-up concern.

If we're discussing hypotheticals, it's just as likely in this fictional universe Hillary would say no to a war as Bernie.

But only Hillary actually has a chance of winning the General, so in this world the only odds we have at all of avoiding this fictitious war is with a Democrat in office. Because Dreams can't stop wars. Only people who actually have a chance at getting elected and then go on to actually be elected can.

 

[soleil]

If we're discussing hypotheticals, it's just as likely in this fictional universe Hillary would say no to a war as Bernie.

But only Hillary actually has a chance of winning the General, so in this world the only odds we have at all of avoiding this fictitious war is with a Democrat in office. Because Dreams can't stop wars. Only people who actually have a chance at getting elected and then go on to actually be elected can.

I get your point about Hillary being the safer bet. I don't disagree that she's the safer bet to win.

I just don't share your confidence she would say no to war. I want to see proof of that on her record. People keep touting her long resume. Long resume means even MORE chances to prove you are anti-war, and I'm not seeing it on her record.

And the reason why I bother to say how different Bernie would be is because there's always this undercurrent that Bernie can't do anything different than Hillary action-wise just because of the GOP-controlled Congress. In response to that point, I submit the many decisions a Commander-in-Chief makes.

 

[Amir0x]

I get your point about Hillary being the safer bet. I don't disagree that she's the safer bet to win.

I just don't share your confidence she would say no to war. I want to see proof of that on her record. People keep touting her long resume. Long resume means even MORE chances to prove you are anti-war, and I'm not seeing it on her record.

And the reason why I bother to say how different Bernie would be is because there's always this undercurrent that Bernie can't do anything different than Hillary action-wise just because of the GOP-controlled Congress. In response to that point, I submit the many decisions a Commander-in-Chief makes.

I think Hillary is shrewd enough to understand her vote for the Iraq War was problematic, and as a result would be by default more careful in her analysis when all the facts are actually before her as president (unlike, say, as a Senator). Do I know for a fact she would say no? Of course not. She's always been a mite (read: way) too hawkish for my blood. Do I think given the American electorate that she is our only realistic chance of even having a shot at "no"? Yes.

 

[soleil]

I think Hillary is shrewd enough to understand her vote for the Iraq War was problematic, and as a result would be by default more careful in her analysis when all the facts are actually before her as president (unlike, say, as a Senator). Do I know for a fact she would say no? Of course not. She's always been a mite too hawkish for my blood. Do I think given the American electorate that she is our only realistic chance of even having a shot at "no"? Yes.

You keep leading back to her being the most realistic shot at winning, and I already agreed to that. At this point is seems like a tactic to shut down conversation about her weaknesses.

If you want to convince people who don't support her to support her, this isn't the way to go.

 

[MrFatCat]

Take a look at the GOP candidate, then take a look at the DNC, you've got your answer.

 

[Amir0x]

You keep leading back to her being the most realistic shot at winning, and I already agreed to that. At this point is seems like a tactic to shut down conversation about her weaknesses.

If you want to convince people who don't support her to support her, this isn't the way to go.

I don't give a shit if you guys support her or not. I'm not a Hillary Clinton rally girl. You guys will end up being forced to support her if you want a Democrat in office at all and don't want the Supreme Court melting down, so I don't even need to do any convincing.

My job is merely to explain how preposterous it is to even consider Bernie Sanders as a legitimate alternative since he is literally unelectable in modern America as it stands. As I said, I support far more of Bernie's policies than Hillary's.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

I support many more policies Bernie has than Hillary, but I simply know how the world works and will not waste my time on a non-starter.

You start to get the sense a lot of people with this tone just like to get themselves off over their smug, self-righteous sense of "knowing how the world works," "I'm a realist," and more often than not are simply too lazy to get off their ass and do something difficult for a change. It's a nice security blanket, sure, giving up because you've convinced yourself "that's how the world works."

You also have to be completely ignorant to look at the amount of time between now and the first primary and the entire history of electoral politics to just assume Hillary's going to walk into the White House unchallenged, just like everyone presumed back in 2008.

There's plenty of local and state elections to get involved in as well to help make Bernie's ideals possible, but that might require getting educated and doing some actual campaigning. Instead of just settling for one of the most regressive candidates to run on the Democratic ticket in recent memory you could actually, I dunno, get involved instead of throwing your hands in the air.

All of this is just reaffirming why Hillary will get obliterated in the General election. If you can't motivate the base (which is clearly evident she can't at this point) and are relying on the threat of another Republican presidency, that is far from any real guarantee.

 

[soleil]

I don't give a shit if you guys support her or not. I'm not a Hillary Clinton rally girl. You guys will end up being forced to support her if you want a Democrat in office at all and don't want the Supreme Court melting down, so I don't even need to do any convincing.

If that's true, then why the effort to shut down conversation about her weaknesses? It's pretty obvious that you're uncomfortable talking about her weaknesses. You even resort to conjecture to deny her weaknesses. You're sure she would be as good at decision-making, after making a mistake and admitting it, as someone who didn't make the mistake in the first place given the same information? Conjecture at best. Her record shows nothing to prove it. It's pretty clear you have an agenda regardless of your inability to admit it. I'm behind Sanders and am honest enough to say it (and why). You can't admit your own bias.

You start to get the sense a lot of people with this tone just like to get themselves off over their smug, self-righteous sense of "knowing how the world works," "I'm a realist," and more often than not are simply too lazy to get off their ass and do something difficult for a change. It's a nice security blanket, sure, giving up because you've convinced yourself "that's how the world works."

You also have to be completely ignorant to look at the amount of time between now and the first primary and the entire history of electoral politics to just assume Hillary's going to walk into the White House unchallenged, just like everyone presumed back in 2008.

There's plenty of local and state elections to get involved in as well to help make Bernie's ideals possible, but that might require getting educated and doing some actual campaigning. Instead of just settling for one of the most regressive candidates to run on the Democratic ticket in recent memory you could actually, I dunno, get involved instead of throwing your hands in the air.

All of this is just reaffirming why Hillary will get obliterated in the General election. If you can't motivate the base (which is clearly evident she can't at this point) and are relying on the threat of another Republican presidency, that is far from any real guarantee.

Seriously, looking at Amirox's posts, it doesn't look like a genuine effort to discuss anything when every mention of a weakness that Hillary has is met with "Well I'm sure she's different now despite having no record to prove it, and she's the only who can win to stop talking about that. Stupid idiot!!!"

 

[Coriolanus]

Now I'm depressed. =[

You shouldn't be. There's no way Bern will ever beat Hills for the nom without minority support, so in any scenario where he's actually in the ticket, that shouldn't be a concern.

 

[Amir0x]

If that's true, then why the effort to shut down conversation about her weaknesses? It's pretty obvious that you're uncomfortable talking about her weaknesses. You even resort to conjecture to deny her weaknesses. You're sure she would be as good at decision-making, after making a mistake and admitting it, as someone who didn't make the mistake in the first place given the same information? Conjecture at best. Her record shows nothing to prove it. It's pretty clear you have an agenda regardless of your inability to admit it. I'm behind Sanders and am honest enough to say it (and why). You can't admit your own bias.

I support more of Bernie's policies than Hillary's. My bias is toward Bernie. I didn't even say she would be as good of a decision-maker as Bernie. I simply said that since she is the only one with a chance of being elected as a Democrat, her decision making ability is the only one that is even worth inspection. And she'd do perfectly adequately, as she has done in past jobs. Certainly not my ideal, but it's the only shot we have at office.

Your bias is in not being able to understand the nuanced difference between wanting something and our ability to actually get it. Politics is about compromise, and unfortunately if we don't want the country to become a hellscape where liberal justices are replaced by conservative ones and everything from LGBT rights to Abortion rights are back on the table, Hillary is what we will have to settle for.

Unless you can even once in this topic - just once - describe a single realistic scenario for Bernie overcoming the endless hurdles he will have in the general thanks to being a self-described socialist. The dude will be eaten alive. Perhaps literally if Christie is the nominee (ho ho ho).

You start to get the sense a lot of people with this tone just like to get themselves off over their smug, self-righteous sense of "knowing how the world works," "I'm a realist," and more often than not are simply too lazy to get off their ass and do something difficult for a change. It's a nice security blanket, sure, giving up because you've convinced yourself "that's how the world works."

You also have to be completely ignorant to look at the amount of time between now and the first primary and the entire history of electoral politics to just assume Hillary's going to walk into the White House unchallenged, just like everyone presumed back in 2008.

There's plenty of local and state elections to get involved in as well to help make Bernie's ideals possible, but that might require getting educated and doing some actual campaigning. Instead of just settling for one of the most regressive candidates to run on the Democratic ticket in recent memory you could actually, I dunno, get involved instead of throwing your hands in the air.

All of this is just reaffirming why Hillary will get obliterated in the General election. If you can't motivate the base (which is clearly evident she can't at this point) and are relying on the threat of another Republican presidency, that is far from any real guarantee.

I don't assume Hillary is going to be elected either. From this very thread:

She is not guaranteed to win, and the people who say that have a profound misunderstanding of the US political process.

Link

But no amount of working at the grossroots is going to get over the problem that Bernie has. It's not going to change in a year that Americans view socialists less favorably than Atheists and Muslims, literally the bottom of the list. Maybe only pedophiles are worse off. It's not going to change that the system is hopelessly gerrymandered, and we don't have a realistic chance of changing that until the next two Census' are done (at which point we'll actually have to figure out a way to get Democrats to fucking turn out for the mid-terms). Which is over a decade away, well beyond Bernie's scope of potential office time. Meaning that essentially all of Bernie's wide eyed dreams are impossible to implement in any event, even in the laughably slim chance world where he gets elected president.

It's not smug to state reality. I've supported political campaigns since I was old enough to vote. I've donated, I've canvassed, I've phone banked and I've gone to rallies and met many Presidential candidates. That's me getting off my ass. But I'm also a realist, that is true. And if that makes me "smug" to not allow myself to get caught up in bullshit idealistic dreams with no chance of it becoming reality for the next 20 years, then I'm smug.

Doesn't change that Bernie isn't happening in this political climate.

Seriously, looking at Amirox's posts, it doesn't look like a genuine effort to discuss anything when every mention of a weakness that Hillary has is met with "Well I'm sure she's different now despite having no record to prove it, and she's the only who can win to stop talking about that. Stupid idiot!!!"

Please, keep your strawmen out of the discussion. It doesn't suit you.

 

[soleil]

I support more of Bernie's policies than Hillary's. My bias is toward Bernie. I didn't even say she would be as good of a decision-maker as Bernie. I simply said that since she is the only one with a chance of being elected as a Democrat, her decision making ability is the only one that is even worth inspection. And she'd do perfectly adequately, as she has done in past jobs. Certainly not my ideal, but it's the only shot we have at office.

Your bias is in not being able to understand the nuanced difference between wanting something and our ability to actually get it. Politics is about compromise, and unfortunately if we don't want the country to become a hellscape where liberal justices are replaced by conservative ones and everything from LGBT rights to Abortion rights are back on the table, Hillary is what we will have to settle for.

Unless you can even once in this topic - just once - describe a single realistic scenario for Bernie overcoming the endless hurdles he will have in the general thanks to being a self-described socialist. The dude will be eaten alive. Perhaps literally if Christie is the nominee (ho ho ho).



I don't assume Hillary is going to be elected either. From this very thread:



Link

But no amount of working at the grossroots is going to get over the problem that Bernie has. It's not going to change in a year that Americans view socialists less favorably than Atheists and Muslims, literally the bottom of the list. Maybe only pedophiles are worse off. It's not going to change that the system is hopelessly gerrymandered, and we don't have a realistic chance of changing that until the next two Census' are done. Which is over a decade away, well beyond Bernie's scope of potential office time. Meaning that essentially all of Bernie's wide eyed dreams are impossible to implement in any event, even in the laughably slim chance world where he gets elected president.

It's not smug to state reality. I've supported political campaigns since I was old enough to vote. I've donated, I've canvassed, I've phone banked and I've gone to rallies and met many Presidential candidates. That's me getting off my ass. But I'm also a realist, that is true. And if that makes me "smug" to not allow myself to get caught up in bullshit idealistic dreams with no chance of it becoming reality for the next 20 years, then I'm smug.

Doesn't change that Bernie isn't happening in this political climate.

Oh I understand the difference between wanting and ability to have it. But your repeated effort to deflect away from every conversation about the "want" (which is crucial for the long-term, as you can't just sit back and wait for the country to get more Bernie-friendly... that happens with effort, not with smugness) proves that there's something else going on with you.

Other people here who want Bernie but recognize that we can't have him (like me) have no problem discussing Hillary's weaknesses at length. You don't have that ability, so there's more to your story than you admit. You can't even stand talking about her weaknesses. You try to wave that off with a nebulous claim that you support Bernie's stances more, but I'm not seeing evidence of that from your posts.

 

[stufte]

I don't give a shit if you guys support her or not. I'm not a Hillary Clinton rally girl. You guys will end up being forced to support her if you want a Democrat in office at all and don't want the Supreme Court melting down, so I don't even need to do any convincing.

My job is merely to explain how preposterous it is to even consider Bernie Sanders as a legitimate alternative since he is literally unelectable in modern America as it stands. As I said, I support far more of Bernie's policies than Hillary's.

Forced to support her? I won't vote for Hillary. I'd rather "throw my vote away" on a green party candidate or independent. Fuck a country that is too stupid to vote for the right person.

 

[Amir0x]

Forced to support her? I won't vote for Hillary. I'd rather "throw my vote away" on a green party candidate or independent.

Only if you don't actually want a Republican in office. I mean you may be able to sacrifice LGBT rights and Abortion rights for example on the mantle of idealism, but I'm certainly not.

Because that's what is at stake with potential three Supreme Court justices in the mix over the next 4-to-8 years. But hey, you do you mang. It's your vote. It's your right.

Oh I understand the difference between wanting and ability to have it. But your repeated effort to deflect away from every conversation about the "want" (which is crucial for the long-term, as you can't just sit back and wait for the country to get more Bernie-friendly... that happens with effort, not with smugness) prove that there's something else going on with you.

Yes, something else is going on with me.

Reality.

In my ideal world, I'd be voting for Bernie, and he'd actually have a shot at winning and implementing his policies. It's not my ideal world.

 

[kirblar]

Forced to support her? I won't vote for Hillary. I'd rather "throw my vote away" on a green party candidate or independent. Fuck a country that is too stupid to vote for the right person/

Ah, the luxuries of being white, straight, and male.

 

[soleil]

Only if you don't actually want a Republican in office. I mean you may be able to sacrifice LGBT rights and Abortion rights for example on the mantle of idealism, but I'm certainly not.

Because that's what is at stake with potential three Supreme Court justices in the mix over the next 4-to-8 years. But hey, you do you mang. It's your vote. It's your right.



Yes, something else is going on with me.

Reality. In my ideal world, I'd be voting for Bernie, and he'd actually have a shot at winning. It's not my ideal world.

Are you afraid that if you vote for someone who loses the primary fight, you'll be rounded up and killed or something? Why can't you show your support for his views?

If Bernie loses to Hillary 45-55, we can expect to see socialist candidates in upcoming elections.

If Bernie loses to Hillary 30-70, we can expect to see no socialist candidates in upcoming elections.

It's worth voting for Bernie and encouraging others to do so, fully knowing he won't beat Hillary.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

What's so great about single-payer vs. the other universal health systems?

 

[teruterubozu]

Hehe, 8 years later and Hillary supporters still bullying people about their choices.

 

[soleil]

What's so great about single-payer vs. the other universal health systems?

In the United States, we lack the safety net that more socialist countries have to protect the American people from corporate greed. Simply requiring everyone to buy insurance isn't going to give us better dollar-per-capita ratios. We're worst in the world right now.

Without a completely socialist safety net, single payor is the only system that would bring us to sane levels of cost.

 

[stufte]

Ah, the luxuries of being white, straight, and male.

And what horrible things will happen if I don't vote for her?

 

[Interfectum]

Only if you don't actually want a Republican in office. I mean you may be able to sacrifice LGBT rights and Abortion rights for example on the mantle of idealism, but I'm certainly not.

Social polices like this wont change on a dime no matter who is in office. We are a socially progressive society and even if Republicans try and apply the breaks they won't do near as much damage as you fear.

The problem with some of you democrats is you only think about social progression. All a democrat president has to do is toss some socially progessive bones in the mix while fucking us over economically and everyone will love them for it. The country needs a radical shift in economic policy now, not 20 years from now. I know Bernie getting the nomination means there is a going to be a much harder fight for the presidency against a republican, instead of a sure win like Hillary would have. But I'm willing to take that chance to get someone in office who might actually make a real change for this country. I'm not going to stress out over Supreme Court nominations and kick the economic can down the road for another eight years.

 

[Amir0x]

Are you afraid that if you vote for someone who loses the primary fight, you'll be rounded up and killed or something? Why can't you show your support for his views?

If Bernie loses to Hillary 45-55, we can expect to see socialist candidates in upcoming elections.

If Bernie loses to Hillary 30-70, we can expect to see no socialist candidates in upcoming elections.

It's worth voting for Bernie and encouraging others to do so, fully knowing he won't beat Hillary.

No, I'm just not going to waste time on extending a fight that would only serve to hurt Democrats chances in the general election on a candidate with zero percent chance of winning because I feel there are far more important issues than symbolic gestures for the next 4-to-8 years.

My focus is on Supreme Court justices, because I think that's going to be one of the most important changes of whoever becomes president the next 4-to-8 years. Realistically, I know thanks to Congress few big policy initiatives will be able to be forwarded by a Democrat or Republican president. Therefore, I turn to things that they can change, such as Supreme Court nominees.

As such, I don't have the luxury of wanting to spread my ideals and potentially hurt our only viable candidate, such as it is. Real people's lives and wellbeing is at stake. If a Republican gets in office, Abortion rights can literally be back on the chopping block given the proper strategic supreme court nomination and the proper retirement in the court.

What would I say to the many women in this country who need abortions after that? "Well, sorry, I had to put my symbolic vote down for Bernie Sanders so we might have some small percent chance of increasing socialist candidates in the next election who themselves would still not have a chance at least for the next 20 years. But, ya know, ideals!"

None of this is meant to shut down discussion of Hillary's weaknesses or of Bernie's superior ideas, as much as your delusions keep suggesting. Discuss away. I'm simply stating what we have to work with.

The problem with some of you democrats is you only think about social progression. All a democrat president has to do is toss some socially progessive bones in the mix while fucking us over economically and everyone will love them for it. The country needs a radical shift in economic policy now, not 20 years from now. If getting Bernie the nomination means we might see a Republican president I'm willing to take that chance, Supreme Court nominations be damned.

See, even Republicans understand getting Bernie nominated increases their odds exponentially. Supreme Court nominations are one of the most important thing any next president will face, and might fundamentally radically alter the country for generations. Of course it's important, because these are people's lives at stake, and Republican's failed economic policies are for the billionth time not going to help anyone out. So at least getting a change we know will help people out is valuable to me.

 

[HylianTom]

Social polices like this wont change on a dime no matter who is in office. We are a socially progressive society and even if Republicans try and apply the breaks they won't do near as much damage as you fear.

The problem with some of you democrats is you only think about social progression. All a democrat president has to do is toss some socially progessive bones in the mix while fucking us over economically and everyone will love them for it. The country needs a radical shift in economic policy now, not 20 years from now. If getting Bernie the nomination means we might see a Republican president I'm willing to take that chance, Supreme Court nominations be damned.

So you'd willingly fuck-over progressivism's prospects of viability for a few decades because you don't get your way? Nice.

This, right here, speaks volumes.