Now you’re getting it.
When people vote for ‘change’ sometimes they really mean change.
Ludicrous hyperbole.
Wow. I’m not sure I’ve encountered a better example of well poisoning on the SDMB.
Was it fun to knock around that little straw man? Give 'im another good, solid whack. You know, for Bernie.
The Trump campaign thanks you. :rolleyes:
This is a democracy, not some Cuban Revolution or Velikaya Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya. Nobody is overthrowing the order of society. Change therefore comes slowly, with consent from many, poor and rich, non-white and white, pro-engagement peeps and anti-engagement peeps, etc.
I’m a Bernie supporter and Clinton voter. As someone noted above, Sanders has worthy goals and terrible or non-existent plans to achieve them. Clinton will focus on less of what I want, but will actually achieve more of what I want than Sanders would (and a helluva lot more than Trump).
I don’t like Clinton, but realistically she’s the best choice we’ve got this time around. Perhaps this is something the OP needs to “get”.
There’s no debating the Bernie or Bust mentality. It’s like debating conspiracy theorists. I can only hope that, in the end, there are not enough of these people to make a difference in the outcome of this election. What sucks is that these radicals can years later quietly walk back their votes and their activism and express regret. The problem is, regrets mean nothing. Snapping out of it or growing up later means nothing. When you have an opportunity to actually get things done and you waste it on idealism and hoping that the 75 percent of Americans (probably more like 90) will eventually come around and agree with you, you can’t just go back and unfuck the decisions that get us fucked in the interim.
I support Clinton because she isn’t anti-nuclear. Being anti-nuclear is downright irresponsible and very dangerous now, given how bad global warming has gotten. Sanders, on the other hand, has anti-nuclear nonsense written into his platform.
So, how does that make me an amoral shill?
Until fairly recently I spoke of Bernie Sanders in pretty respectful terms. I’m uncomfortable even doing that anymore. In theory, there’s nothing wrong with going to the end of the race – that’s what Clinton herself did after all. I wouldn’t have a problem with Sanders finishing the races on June 7. It’s the possible scene at the convention that worries me. If Sanders would follow Clinton’s lead and end the race in June, that would be one thing. But as someone pointed out in another thread a few weeks ago, Sanders is a holy warrior. He may not have a religion, but he’s still holy. And holy warriors don’t just go away.
We thought that Sanders was on the side of all progressives, but what we’re beginning to see is that Sanders wants to define for everyone what progressivism is. He sees the opportunity to change the progressives first – to hell with whatever happens in the elections. If he can redefine what progressive means and who progressives are, then that’s good enough for him. And if the country gets screwed by republicans over the next 4 years, then in his mind, that just polarizes people more and makes it more likely that people will see progressivism the way he sees it.
What Sanders hasn’t calculated – and there’s pretty clear proof that calculation isn’t really his thing – we would regress so badly that it would take potentially decades to undo the damage. We’re still recovering from the damage that our first holy warrior, Ralph Nader, allowed George W Bush to inflict.
I think what you have to “get” is that right now Sanders is pretty much encouraging and facilitating the sort of supporters exemplified by the op and that increasingly that is a louder (not more numerous but nevertheless louder) part of “the message” this loud subgroup of Sanders supporters are trying to send and plan on bringing to the convention. By virtue of Sanders support for (and often personal messaging of) the primacy of the Crooked Hillary the Horrible, Big Business toady and stooge, stealing the election from “The People” message, along with a focus on how the Democratic Party is the enemy establishment that they must take on, the op’s perspective is the message that is now being claimed as being sent by support for Sanders.
Opposing Sanders’ anti-nuclear stance is fair. Calling it “very dangerous” is scaremongering nonsense. It’s not like the man is planning on walking into a nuclear power plant and pressing buttons until he causes another Chernobyl; even if not a single nuclear power plant is approved for construction during his Presidency, that is not something that can reasonably be called “very dangerous.”
You mean the Patriot Act, which Hillary Clinton voted for, and Bernie Sanders voted against? Or the Iraq War, which Hillary Clinton voted for, and Bernie Sanders voted against? “Don’t vote for the holy warrior, or the bad guys win” is an absurd argument when your alternative is to vote for the bad guy.
the subject of apostasy has no relevance to the problems of the Libya or even the Syria.
Yes, but with Donald Trump those positions are well-founded. I can’t remember a time when a presidential candidate reversed himself again and again on so many issues that are part of a party’s platform. The other reason that the party doesn’t support Trump is that he’s never been a part of the team to begin with…kinda like Sanders come to think of it. Political party membership is more than just having ideas; it’s about creating a organizational structure which makes it possible to achieve your political aims. There will be differences of opinion within that structure, which is understood, but you’re still a member of the frat. Donald Trump never joined the frat. Nobody knows where his loyalties lie. That’s what makes them nervous. Ted Cruz joined the frat but in name only, which is why he’s hated and shunned. This also explains the tension between Bernie and the Dems.
The republicans will probably eventually support Donald provided that Donald can prove to them that he can overcome those concerns alluded to above of not being part of the party structure. If he can communicate to Paul Ryan et al that he’s willing to work within that structure, and there’s evidence that he might, then he’ll get the support he needs over time. And the difference between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is that a majority of voters within the party voted for Donald Trump. That is not the case with Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump also did well across different segments of the party. Not the case with Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump also won swing states and populous states. Not the case with Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump, like Obama, won despite having to overcome major disadvantages - the same kind of disadvantages that Bernie Sanders is complaining and howling about as being proof that the system is ‘rigged’. If Bernie Sanders was so fucking great and if he’s the perfect guy to lead all progressives, then he should have been able to overcome those advantages like Trump and like Obama. But he couldn’t, could he?
I sincerely hope that they would have bailed out Wall Street in the same way that BUSH did first and Obama did second. That bailout was also made possible by NEW DEAL LEGISLATION – or did you not read about that in your history texts? There’s a reason that legislation existed in the first place. It saved our financial system.
Hillary Clinton has supported progressive legislation in the past, but Sanders supporters simply ignore it and focus on her negatives instead. I think it’s absolutely fair to criticize her hawkish votes and some of her support for Wall Street, but it’s not fair and it’s frankly dishonest to misrepresent her and her husband’s support of profoundly progressive legislation, which actually did include tax increases for wealthier people in the 1990s (Bill’s not Hillary’s legislation but I think it’s safe we can assume that she’d go along with dems if it were proposed again). She was also at the forefront of the first movement to reform healthcare. She also would have supported her husband’s assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill. And what Bernie supporters are missing is that if she becomes president, Bernie would probably have a seat at the policy-making table. You think Bernie’s going to have a voice in President Trump’s America?
Beyond that I think it’s counterproductive to hate Wall Street the way that far left progressives do. I don’t think that gets us anywhere. We need accountability for sure. We need more of what Obama has done in taking more decisive action with things like healthcare, firearms, and overtime pay. I think Hillary could and would do that. She needs prodding sometimes, but she’d do it. But handing over the reins to republicans would be a disaster with no end in sight.
I approve of many of Bernie’s goals. But I wonder why it took him so long to seek the national stage. It takes years & lots of effort to truly build a progressive coalition. It also should involve more than white baristas worrying about that college debt.
I’ve wondered whether the strident minority of Bernie fans includes some Trump supporters. Now I’m pretty sure.
Put the coal miners back to work sharpening guillotines.
(After we import the guillotines from China.)
People like you gave us 8 years of Bush. Regarding the amount of war during that administration, would you describe it as above average, below average, or just about right?
Seriously, I’d like to see this as a joke, but if you’re declaring tacit support for Trump, you don’t give two shits about war or imperialism. And that’s the most charitable view.
I don’t know your race, age, or gender, but I’ll wager that you’re in a class of people who can withstand the privations of a Trump presidency better than many. Young white male? US Citizen? Already got your degree? How close am I?
Over the last week I’ve become increasingly uncomfortable with Sanders’s campaign. His tepid response to what I see as clear misconduct by his supporters in Nevada is unacceptable. And it’s accurate, I think, to compare the “Bernie or Bust” folks to conspiracy theorists. The OP has a lot of misinformation in it.
Now, I have a Facebook friend who lost a dear friend to violence during the Honduran coup. His rage and grief at Clinton for supporting this coup is personal. I don’t expect him to swallow his anger and vote for her.
But if you don’t have an overwhelming emotional reason to vote against her, I expect you to be rational. And saying that you agree with Clinton on nothing is completely irrational.
Nader not screwing up Gore means no GWB, therefore no PATRIOT act and Iraq War. Hell, possibly no 9/11 depending on Gore’s response to the intelligence.
I applaud the OP for standing against the Homosexual cabal that controls the Democratic party!
Bush destroyed the GOP and made a more progressive America possible. Trump will drive a few more nails in that coffin. I think it’s pragmatic liberals who aren’t thinking clearly here.
If Trump wins, the GOP becomes a more populist party that knows even less about governing than it does now and turns off young people, minorities, and women even more than it does now. That’s why I need Trump to be stopped, and I’m absolutely fine with electing Hillary Clinton to do that. The other benefit of Clinton, for conservatives, is that she agrees with us on a lot of issues and if she has a successful Presidency the power of the Third Way types will be cemented while the progressives are further marginalized.
There are no other obvious leaders in the Democratic Party other than Hillary Clinton. If she loses, the party goes into 2020 completely rudderless. That’s bad in many ways, but great if you want to change the party. You can’t beat the Third Wayers without actually beating the Third Wayers. If they win, you lose, unless you prefer the moderates and reject Bernie’s agenda wholesale.
If you agree with Bernie’s agenda but not his methods, then you’re just wrong. Bernie’s methods are the only way to achieve his goals. There is no single payer, no free college, no overturning of Citizens United, no high taxes on the wealthy possible under the Democratic Party as it is currently constituted. They are not going to get there only slower. Third Way policies will simply become entrenched and accepted as normal. ACA will be the law of the land for 100 years, Democrats will rely on Wall Street money to get elected, taxes will never go up on anyone making less than $400K, and never above 40%, and college will never be free.
YOu know how I know this? Because my own party has been through it. Until Reagan, we never considered actually making progress on our own agenda, we just hoped to slow down yours. Then came Reagan and we got more ambitious. The party became more conservative. We had a “safe” candidate too, in George Bush. There’s a reason we don’t talk about “the Bush Revolution”.
I don’t like Hillary in large part for the reasons the OP lays out, but no way I’m voting for Trump. Saying that we need Trump to make the liberal wing look better next time is just sour grapes, like the right wingers who always complain that the GOP loses because their candidates aren’t conservative enough.
Both parties have managed to nominate perhaps their worst, most unpopular candidates (although I’ll admit it might be debatable on the GOP side). But our worst candidate is at least better than their worst candidate.