One of the few times when I think people who say the parties are alike are right. Go to free republic’s archives in 2008 and 2012 and see the bitching about McCain and Romney.
You know, I only clicked on that link because I thought there is no way in hell Ted could come off as “likable”.
Holy crap! You were right! A very nice comeback from Ted. And a classy one at that!
Okay, I feel sick to my stomach now…
He’s got people for that.
Okay…I’ll bite the metaphorical bullet:
Melania Trump is ugly. I don’t see anything attractive about her physically. At all.
I’ll keep you all posted on if The Donald sues me for saying that.
Speaking of Trump, he’s now saying that the protesters are violating his First Amendment rights.
He also said
Well, so what, you don’t have to sleep with her. (That’s my job. And does Donald pay me enough?! Ha! 
)
No, you are correct. However, Senator Clinton, D-NY, did vote in favor of the AUMFI, which resulted in, arguably, the worst ongoing disaster for the US, the ME and a fair bit of the rest of the world.
It is unlikely that Sanders supporters will adopt a pyromaniacal attitude in the fall. Most of them will vote for Ms. Clinton over whatever mess the reich wing has to offer. But, at least in the spring, voting for Bernie allows them to feel good about putting forward their values.
Exactly. If the Democratic candidate wants my vote, and that of other progressives, he or she must earn it, by making specific planks in their policy that will appeal to us. The thing we care most about is getting money out of politics and fixing income inequality. We have trouble believing a candidate who is deeply beholden to Wall Street can or will deliver on these issues. If that’s a problem for you, centrist Democrats, I suggest you hasten to solve it. We are free to vote for whomever we think best. If Bernie loses, well, I think very highly of Jill Stein.
Oh, and for those who say we should work at building a strong progressive movement at the municipal, county and state levels: of course, you are absolutely correct, I agree with you. But that does not mean we can’t work on Presidential politics at the same time. To think otherwise is naive.
I put more blame on the people all across the country who voted for GWB. The Nader voters just wanted to protest not having a shot at getting a progressive President, and fucked up by getting us Bush.
The GWB voters wanted him ON PURPOSE, which is far more contemptible.
Also, we’re seeing a definite trend among state governments to quash reforms made at the city and local level. North Carolina overruling Charlotte is a recent example. So it doesn’t do a hell of a lot of good to mobilize locally, when the state government can crush you.
The U.S.A. really is built up of states. They’re the ones we need to start winning back.
You’re ascribing naivete to the wrong view there.
The way the Democratic nominee earns the Presidency is by not being the Republican nominee. Until the Republican Party ceases to exist, this will be the case.
THEN we can work toward the elimination of the Democratic Party.
I don’t think it’s just about “purity ponies.” It’s about recognizing that the Democrats are a coalition, and you can’t win back Congress on a platform of nothing but abortion & gay rights. There has to be some sop to labor, and I mean this in a cynical and even Machiavellian way. You have to get a pool of candidates who can win over potential voters that would otherwise be unimpressed with your narrow ‘social justice’ agenda. And not all of them are progressives who can read spreadsheets.
Anyway…
Yeah, “uniting behind Cruz” is possibly the stupid Republican idea of the year. Cruz* isn’t even going to do well* once the primaries move out of the Bible Belt. Rubio is out now. They should be uniting behind Kasich, and letting Cruz’s numbers fall away naturally. If they ignore a low-key Catholic like Kasich and endorse a nutty cultish holy roller instead, they risk pushing northern Catholics toward Trump or toward the Democrats. And the people endorsing him don’t even* like* Cruz. What do they have against John Kasich?
And if you win the Presidency through some miracle, your President will be able to do squat because he/she has no support in Congress and Congress passes laws. Good luck with that.
If 30% of Republicans stay home because they cannot bring themselves to vote for their party’s nominee, we will take back the Senate and probably the House as well. Good luck with obstructionism then!
You’ve omitted your location but let me guess: You live in a secure Democratic area. So your 3rd party vote won’t affect the outcome. Sort of like an antivax parent, letting his precious child remain pure while depending on herd immunity.
As a Texan, I’ve been told my vote for President “doesn’t count.” Because the state will probably go Red anyway. But I was proud to vote for Gore–I thought he’d make a better president than my idiot governor. (I was right.) And I voted for Kerry, too.
While statewide elections still go Republican, my US Rep, Texas Senator & Texas Rep are all Democratic–I do check out the primaries. And the State Board of Education is elected–the Republican members are the Creationism-loving, Public Education-hating fools who make the state a laughing stock.
Voted for Clinton in the primary & will gladly vote for her in November.
We can leave that job to the Republicans, they’ve already made a good start on it.
You have a priority list and income inequality and money in politics is at the top, I get that, its a good list. But given that 100% of your vote that doesn’t go to the Dem nominee is 100% a vote for the Republican owing to a 2 party system, how does that help your cause? The only positive I can see coming out of this is that the Dems lost the election, see Jill Stein or whatever 3rd party liberal candidate votes they lost, and pivot towards the left. Did that happen after Nader cost us the 2000 election? Or did we simply try to prevent a 3rd party from being viable at all? Given 9/11 happened soon after and many Democrats voted for war in Iraq (granted, due to deception by Bush) and the Patriot Act, did the liberal shift caused by Nader’s 2000 run get canceled out, ignored, or just didn’t happen? If you’re trying to convince someone that voting principle for a 3rd party liberal candidate, where can you point to that such a thing has succeeded in shifting the Dems to the left?
You can do both, but what will be more effective for you? Hoping for another Florida 2000 debacle and getting a conservative in office for 4-8 years, or creating a stronghold where a 3rd party can consistently deliver results? Because the former comes with a huge price that you don’t want: less liberal agendas, rolling back of liberal policies, continued harm to the country, and more entrenching of conservative ideas. The latter comes with little cost and almost all benefits. Why are you picking the more destructive one thinking that is the better outcome?
Reposting this link from that other thread over there: there is a petition on change.org to make the Republican Convention venue suspend its gun-free-zone policy during the convention.
Now, I am not entirely sure that this is a Republican idea, per se, and the stupidness of it is kind of debatable (from either side), but it should still get a mention here. If for no other reason than to point out the comment below the petition, “These guys should work with my other favorite charity- Americans for Responsible Drunk Driving.”
The evil side of me (the one with the little devil on my shoulder) would sign this petition, in the same spirit as signing up to see two railroad trains collide.
Sure, let’s pack a hall full of pissed-off Trump supporters, with guns. What could go wrong?
I’ll respond, though I don’t want to sidetrack a thread about Republicans by talking about progressives. If you’re a progressive looking to promote progressive values, what do you do? Do you support a candidate you can tolerate because the alternative is a candidate who is terrible? You would say yes.
I get where you’re coming from which is why I said at the outset your viewpoint is rational and justified. I also feel there’s an equally rational viewpoint on the completely flip side of things.
If you support someone you just tolerate, how does that help your cause? How is your voice heard? Sure, you didn’t take one step backwards this time. But you also didn’t move forward. Do you think next election will be any different? How can you throw your vote away on a progressive candidate in 2020? You’re helping the opposition! This is an important election!
No one even knows the 2020 candidates, but I can guarantee with 100% certainty, this same dilemma will present itself then and every election thereafter. So at what point do you say “I’m tired of the candidate I can tolerate. I want the candidate I can support, and I want a party that will support me”?
Which election cycle do you finally take the stand? Or do you never?