And you think Hillary voters don’t get it?
Sanders’s embrace of woo, that factless, emotion-driven bullshit body of idiocy, is part and parcel of this new conspiracy-ish thinking.
I think Sanders is right about many things. I also think that he’s right mostly by chance, because he doesn’t appear to really look at evidence and facts. He looks at ways to make the world conform to what he wants to believe. Woo 101.
Now, a person who is right about many things is at least much better than a person who is wrong about nearly everything. And I think Sanders is a good person. But the way he thinks about the world is anathema to me. He may be nonreligious, but he embraces his ideology the way a fundamentalist Christian embraces the bible.
I recently read a book set it Tudor England with all of the various religious factions running around, each trying to get members of other factions burned at the stake for heresy. That’s what Sanders’s campaign looks like to me right now.
Uh huh. So ISIL doesn’t declare people infidels as justification for killing them for apostasy, but Sanders does. Well done, you’re both making complete fools of yourselves.
Amusing the straw man illogical response.
DAESH comes out of the Iraq. It is not the problem of the Arab spring, it is the problem of the gross incompetence of the Americans in their war of aggression against the Iraqi regime (the other terrible Baath regime of course).
Of course the DAESH are takfiri, but that has not a thing to do with the original descent into the violence in the Syria nor the Libya. The DAESH popped up late in each of these cases, and the Takfir had nothing to do with the causes of the original civil wars fighting in each.
I see that analogies are very difficult for you. I’m sorry.
I’d rather drive nails with a hammer than the heel of a shoe, but thanks for that fascinating specimen of what you call “thinking”.
Losing an election because you ignored your base can be strong medicine. Just as establishment Republicans.
Nuclear is great and all, but until someone figures out the NIMBY problem, it is a completely untenable movement.
And to the OP, someone touched on it earlier, but if there are enough of these ‘young’ progressives, they can make their feelings known by voting anti-war in the House and Senate to keep a hawkish president in check. And if they don’t have anti-war candidates to vote for in their state or districts, they need to make their voices heard and pose a serious threat to vote the bastards out next election. But I don’t think they have the numbers to make that difference. So I get it if they want to vote Green or write someone in, but there is no logical case for the people you described to vote Trump (unless they are single issue voters, and that issue is to stick it to HRC - which I suspect is what this is really all about).
I don’t believe any of this is correct.
-
I don’t think my taxes would be the same under Trump as under Clinton. I’m certain my taxes would be lower under Trump, probably disastrously low.
-
We would be a lot closer to single payer under Clinton than under Trump.
-
Yes, both Clinton and Trump would have bailed out Wall Street, but not in the same way. Trump would have supported less, probably far less, regulations. We would almost certainly not have a consumer protection bureau.
-
Trump would be far more unfriendly to labor unions than Clinton would be.
But let’s be honest for a second, the Tea-Party, Evangelical base that the GOP ignored is far more likely to be Cruz supporters. Trump definitely doesn’t share Tea-Party ideas on the size of government, and he definitely doesn’t share Evangelical ideas on morality. He may play to racial fears and America-First-ism on both of those sides, but Trump is not really the product of issues that the GOP base wish were more pronounced. Hell, one of Trump’s main selling points is “He can make a deal” - the GOP base didn’t want any deals.
I agree with those that say that if the Democrats lose because of a far left people abandon them, they aren’t going to go left to get those people… they’ll go right to get more centrists. The Democrats already tried to go left to deal with a far-right conservative in a Presidential race… it led to Walter Mondale getting destroyed, which, of course, led to Bill Clinton and the DLC becoming more and more ascendant and taking over the party. Trust me, if Sanders supporters stay home because they believe the Democrats are too corrupt and Trump wins the Presidency, they aren’t going to pander to the left, they are going to tack to the center.
Anyways, foolsguinea, vote for who ever you want. Just don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out. With your (and other BernieOrBust folks) irrational bleating, I don’t care about your vote. I’d rather not accept it (just as I’d rather not accept the votes of Klan members). Start your own party rather than trying to hijack mine.
Voting Trump if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination isn’t a protest vote-it’s a destructive temper tantrum. “If we can’t get exactly what we want, we’ll put Trump in, and after he fucks this country up they’ll be begging Bernie to come in and fix things!”
I’ve never heard Bernie say that Trump is preferable to Clinton. If fact, he’s said the exact opposite. And that’s the big take-away form the OP, so no I still don’t get it. Sorry-- I should have made it clearer in my first post.
Did you see the list of Trump’s potential SCOTUS nominees? You really want to put any of those whackos on the court for the next 30 years?
Clinton can be the most conservative Democrat in the world and I’d still see her as lightyears better than an actual Republican. She won’t nominate another Scalia. She will automatically default to Democratic platforms when against Republicans, and she appoints and hires a lot more liberals than Trump, even accidentally
If it’s strong medicine, either it’s very slow-acting, or the patient has built up an astonishing tolerance.
That’s not strong medicine-it’s a poison pill.
No, you don’t get it. Sanders right now is still occasionally, begrudgingly, saying that Clinton would not be as bad as Trump. But his focus is on the evils of the Democratic establishment. His rhetoric explicitly empowers the POV of the op and states that the rigged party is at fault for it. The message being sent by encouraging this crap, by explicitly stating that harm to November chances if it is not him is not his concern, getting the most delegates he can and taking his fight to the convention floor is all that matter, is, no matter how much he adds a footnote that he’ll work to defeat Trump, that only he is the path forward and nothing else matters.
Not so sure many of those voting for him want to send that message though.
QFT. Rooting for the Democratic Party to lobotomize itself the way the Republicans have isn’t progressivism; it’s blinkered nihilism.
Just blocked yet another Sanders supporter on Facebook: when I cited the Politifact article about Nevada’s caucuses, she accused me of being a troll in the pay of Clinton’s campaign, and of smothering the flames of the revolution. I can do without that.
The thought is that a glorious progressive movement will rise phoenix-like from the ashes. It’s not nihilistic so much as extremist. Also, completely unrealistic.
Smothering the flames of the revolution with your Trenchcoat of Establishmentarianism? Again?