Unlike some people, I listen to reason and can be persuaded to change my mind, which I did. I voted for Hillary, and can honestly say I have never voted in any non-Democratic primary.
I didn’t forget. What is your point?
I will be voting Jill Stein if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination. Not doing nothing. I have been canvassing for Bernie door to door and will be voting Green if he doesn’t get the democratic nomination, where do you get “doing nothing” from? It’s amazing how disrespectful you status quo loving dems are to people who support social democracy and peace.
AKA- Voting for Trump.
Certainly it seems to be the act of someone who doesn’t care two cents about the next Supreme Court nominations (and the consequences).
I try to eschew labels but I guess I would be a ‘centrist’ or a ‘center leftist’ voter (or a Marxist in the eyes of my right wing uncle, lol).
To your point, I don’t believe in loyalty to the party anymore than you do. I don’t think anyone should demand loyalty to the party, but I think it’s fair to say to a Sanders or Nader voter, "We may not have congruent opinions, but we may have some things in common. We certainly have more in common than we do with the other party that would stand to take power if the left side of the mainstream (center-left, Democratic) loses.
Assuming that Hillary Clinton wins, I think that Bernie Sanders’ supporters would risk missing a tremendous opportunity if they sit this one out and jeopardize Clinton’s chances. As I have said, even though I am voting for Hillary Clinton and have my own opinions about how Sanders would perform as president, I still see his movement as a legitimate one. I don’t think all of his ideas are ready for prime time yet, but that’s one reason why I think he’s serving the Democratic party and the nation well by remaining in the race. I personally don’t count myself among those who insists that he drop out and hand over the nomination to Clinton – not yet anyway. The opportunity for Sanders and his base of constituents is that the longer he stays in the race, the more he pushes Clinton to the left, and the longer he can show a contrast between progressive ideals and those of the conservative base.
With Sanders seemingly destined to have an impact on and a voice at the Democratic Convention, it is almost certain that he will force Hillary to take at least some of the influence and some of Sanders positions seriously. There will be post-election pressure to follow through, just as there was post-election pressure on Obama to follow through on healthcare and winding down combat operations in Iraq – both of which Obama actually DID. So I disagree with this notion that all is lost and that nothing changes if Sanders doesn’t win. There’s a very real opportunity to get some of the progressive agenda inserted into Clinton’s first year presidential agenda. Should the progressives stay home, then not only does the progressive agenda fail to move forward, but the next time such an opportunity arises we will have a much bigger mess to clean up.
And maybe we will have an additional 300,000 or 600,000 or 1 million voters four years from now who won’t have to worry about voting because they will, in effect, be denied the vote at the state level. And without the 9th Supreme Court justice added to the bench, and with a republican president, a more republican congress, and more state republican governors, nothing will stop them. Nobody to stop writing the laws. Nobody to overturn the laws. Nobody to keep a republican president and congress from turning states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia red for a good decade or more. And not because there’s an absence of progressive voters, but an effective legal strategy to keep them from making their voice heard. I understand the criticism about some of Hillary’s individual votes – fair game, IMO. But there are other issues at stake here.
rogerbox, if you do not mind I would like to explore your binary “warmonger or not” construct for my curiosity.
Is any decision to use military force at any time being a warmonger?
Is any decision to use military force outside of a direct attack by a nation state on our soil being a warmonger?
Would honoring a mutual defense treaty count as being a warmonger?
Thanks in advance.
Said the pot. Sorry, buddy, whether it fits with your attempted putdowns or not, I don’t love the status quo. However, I am old enough and have enough experience with politics to know that Bernie won’t get shit done.
Find somebody else to attempt your insults on; I’m too smart and far too grounded in reality for you.
You didn’t forget, but you proceeded to accuse Hillary of being a warmonger over Iraq. OK, you’re just delusionary, then.
Have your ethics taken a 180 degree turn in the past couple of weeks, such that you’re willing to condemn people ethically for an action much milder than your plan to sabotage the Republican primary?
Because your calling my voting for a candidate a “lesser evil”, when you wanted everyone to sabotage the democratic process, is a wonderful example of why I’ve judged your seriousness as I have.
Primaries are paid for by the State. Caucuses are paid for by parties. So non-affiliated people pay for your leadership race.
And I must say,SlackerInc, given your publicly stated intention to vote in the opposing party’s primary, your self righteousness is shockingly full of shit.
I was very clear that my intent (although I didn’t follow through) was to weaken a party that I think is the preeminent malevolent force in American politics. Is that what the Bernie voters think the Democratic Party is? Are they trying to weaken it because it’s evil? Or are they putting one foot in the door and saying "sure, we’ll hang around the party and use the facilities, and if they nominate our favorite candidate, yay, and we’ll of course expect the party regulars to then vote for our guy in the general election…but if our guy doesn’t win the nomination, we’re outta here before you can say ‘Bern notice’ "
?
The system you have, with two houses and a president, each with their own powers to propose and obstruct seems tailor made for compromise
Except when one or both houses obstruct solely for the sake of obstruction.
I’d like to know is SlackerInc really so delusional that he thinks that Trump or Clinton wouldn’t do exactly the same thing if they were losing. They’d put conditions on their endorsement. In fact has there ever been any politician that did not negotiate in this exact position to get as much as they can?
Didn’t read the thread before commenting, eh?
Hey, I already stopped. 
Obviously what “Bernie or bust” people think is that Sanders is the only candidate they feel they can support. So it’s perfectly ethical to support him in the primaries and then choose not to support anyone in the general if he’s not in it. Maybe not pragmatic. And as I said, primaries are paid for by the State, so in non-caucus states the Democrats and Republicans are using unaffiliated people’s taxes to pay for their party elections. How could it possibly be unethical for a usually unaffiliated voter to participate?