Bless your dear heart, you’ve swallowed the Republican hitjobs hook, line, and sinker, and you think this helps the progressive cause.
That’s why I’m voting for a third party. If I vote for her, I’m telling the Democrats that this sort of candidate is “good enough.”
Now, if Hillary wins without progressives, yes, she can “safely” ignore them. But she won’t.
Huh? Wha? Da fuq?
Aw, bless your naïve little heart, you really believe that Hillary’s a good person because she has the right enemies.
'Luc, you do realize, yes, that the Democratic Party is the party of Andrew Jackson & James K. Polk? Now, if they were LBJ Great Society liberals, I could work with that. But apparently that’s just too progressive. Maybe they really only liked LBJ when he was bombing the Orientals.
If they don’t want to be progressives but just old-fashioned yellow dog Democrats, I can take them at their word. I’ve voted Democrat for a decade, but I’m looking at them with new eyes. I think I have too much injun & too much latin in me to vote for* that* party.
Yeah, nah, but thanks for giving us a look into your very interesting mind.
Well, yeah, having the right enemies goes a ways with me, that’s for sure. Can’t help but notice how much time the Forces of Darkness spend talking about how they have to stop her. If they are thrashing about on the floor cursing, I see no reason to interrupt them to explain that I don’t much like her either. If I were a better person, I probably wouldn’t look forward to it so gleefully.
Perhaps, some day I will be! Perhaps that will be the same day I buy your deep dish crapola about Andy Jackson somehow being a founding spirit of the progressive movement.
You think they’re the right enemies, yet you also believe in the scandals they accuse her of?
The harder you throw a ball against the wall, the harder it will bounce back toward you.
But politics and social change don’t work that way, at least reliably. Reagan was catastrophic for progressive values, but his Presidency didn’t rebound into a following progressivism — it led to Bill Clinton taking the Democrats toward the center or center-right. The under-regulation which led to the 2007-2008 credit crisis didn’t lead to any major changes, just cosmetic fixes and more of the same.
Best therefore is to play for the preferable near-term future and not fantasize about some long-term “rebound strategy.”
Your writing “Clinton may be preferable to Trump” leads me to infer you aren’t aware how horrible a Trump Presidency might be. Yes, the Congress won’t approve the stupidest of his ideas but a President Trump may exert enormous influence via the tone and style of his White House. Read an account of the results from leaders similar to Trump in style.
Moreover, your invective (“right-wing murderer & imperialist”) tells me you have a caricatured view of Clinton. (And weren’t you the one who wrote “foreign adventures by the likes of the … Clintons” and then admitted that the plural referred to just Hillary? :smack: Your “arguments” seem driven by emotion, not reason.)
You admire Sanders and he will surely support Hillary strongly in the general election, as will most rational observers with your leanings. Do you think they’re all wrong?
Shhh, he’s having a moment, don’t disrupt it with logic. Feel the Bern, flow with the Bro.
The Pubbies did a great job. They got you to buy it hook, line, and sinker.
But it’s his Presidential campaign that has aroused (or “galvanized”) progressives. He must focus on that for now, but he has endorsed a “Brand New Congress” campaign started by some of his aides.
I think this is the way to look at it. Despite being a Hillary supporter in 2008 and despite my skepticism over Obama’s lack of expereince, I wasted no time supporting Barack Obama and Organizing For America. The Bush administration, the GOP as a whole, and John McCain made that decision easy. If you truly support a progressive cause, then you live with the fact that a majority of other progressives might define it differently than you and you stand with them anyway. Otherwise, your supporting conservatives.
I’ve never faulted Bernie or his supporters for believing and arguing that they’re the better alternative than Hillary, or that Hillary has flaws. I’ve never had a problem with them pointing out she’s a flawed and vulnerable candidate and that Bernie might at least have some appeal that she lacks. I think all of that is actually true. But the voters decided this one. Did Hillary have some winking and nodding, elbow nudging help from the DNC? Yeah, I don’t doubt it. Still, Obama was able to overcome it in 2008, whereas Bernie was not. Trying to use his movement and voting bloc to teach the Democratic party a lesson is irrational and is the worst example of voting against one’s own self-interest. And it’s also a sign of character weakness. I hope Bernie and most of his supporters don’t go that route.
Clinton’s editorial today about childcare issues. She ain’t the same as Trump.
Nobody’s the same as Trump. He’s arguably one of the greatest marketing and promotional geniuses of all time, and he knows how to generate cash flow. But those qualities in no way prepares him for the deadly serious job of being president.
Well, right. But my point is to fellow Sanders supporters: disagreement or agreement with Clinton should be granular and issues-based. Sure, I strongly dislike certain stances on issues she’s taken, the Honduran coup high on that list. But if I’m going to criticize her for specific issues, I should also praise her for specific issues. Her stance on childcare is something praiseworthy as far as I’m concerned, and most folks on the left feel similarly; it’s also not a stance I’ve seen Trump take.
If they’re not willing to look and think and decide for themselves, nobody else can make them.
If you don’t vote, you don’t matter. Simple as that. And it’s your choice and your responsibility, not anyone else’s.
Although I give Trump much more credit for business savvy than some Dopers do, he’d be just another billionaire nobody’s heard of if it weren’t for his narcissistic urge to put his name on everything he touches. Yes, he’s a TV celebrity but Oprah Winfrey and Jerry Springer are much bigger. So …
:eek: :smack: I agree with this totally … assuming “arguably” was a typo for “not.”
Maybe the word “genius” makes you choke, I do get that, but, going by results, he’s certainly unequaled (except perhaps among those not named Kardashian) as an *effective *marketer and self-promoter.
Yeah. I absolutely loath the guy, and it pains me to no end to admit it, but there is simply no arguing with the results. He has marketed and promoted himself successfully like few others alive have.