A hundred or so people from one angle isn’t enough for me to draw a conclusion. This compares to the Republican homogeneity. When I see the Republican convention on television, it appears to be roughly like taking an Olympic swimming pool, filling it with vanilla wafers, and tossing in a handful of Oreos.
Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with this, except as a way to weasel out of the question. If you don’t have the conviction of your assertion to answer the question, just say so.
You could take a hint from what this guy said in another thread:
I didn’t find it necessary to rebut your assertion that Democrats are preaching a message of equality. It’s absurd on its face. “Everyone should be treated the same” is now “coded language” in liberal circles.
Coded? Then what do you think it really means?
Agree.
Leaving aside the matter of why you didn’t just say that the first time, that sounds like code itself for “I’m butthurt about the administration’s agenda and I’ve got pouty duck lips to prove it”.
I think I’m starting to see what’s up with you. You are one of those middle/working class whites who sees racial equality as a threat to your way of life. Am I close? It would explain all that dancing around you do in your answers without facing the questions head on.
From what little I’ve seen of the infighting on lib blogs, Hillary people accuse Bernie people of being white dudebro socialists. Apparently blacks and hispanics aren’t feeling the Bern.
I don’t much like Hillary, and so what? I really intensely dislike the whole Clintonista Republican Lite, “business friendly” horseshit. With a caveat: I think Bill Clinton thought it was necessary, and Horndog Bill is one of the most gifted politicians of our time, so I got to think he had a point. In a time when so much campaign support came from business, maybe that was the smart move to preserve the progress we had rather than risk losing it. So rather than regret the Clintons maybe I should regret the circumstances they found themselves in. And so it went.
Still, I don’t like or trust her.
So, Bernie is important to me as a demonstration of the importance of the progressive vote. I very much doubt he can be nominated. (I didn’t think Obama could do it either, so if you want to stop reading, I won’t blame you.) But him and Lizzie Warren and a couple others, they still fill an important role. Remind her, keep her honest. Insofar as that word applies to a politician.
But truth is, we got nowhere to go. Too big a risk, bet the farm sure, but not the country. President Trump? President Perry? I can’t tell you which one scares me most, my horrormeter only goes to 10 and they both peg it!
Nope. The only threat to my way of life is deficit spending and tax increases, so I support whichever candidate is best on those issues.
The progressive vote is completely unimportant. Don’t kid yourself. Sanders’ ability to challenge Clinton is based entirely on Clinton’s weakness as a candidate. In a normal Democratic field he’d be Dennis Kucinich redux.
The last two republican presidents started multiple wars which resulted in massive deficit spending. Why would you ever vote republican since they threaten your way of life?
Then what’s the secret liberal code in “Everyone should be treated the same”? If you’re going throw that out there, you should really explain it.
And I can think of a whole swack of threats to everyone’s way of life, including yours and mine. I prefer less simplistic leaders who demonstrate an awareness of the sheer complexity of a functioning modern day society.
The Republicans have been terrible. I didn’t vote for GWB. My first GOP vote was for John McCain because he had a strong record on the deficit. Although it’s getting easier now to support Republicans because they’ve held spending down since taking over Congress and Democrats are now the party of borrow and spend.
If by “hold spending down” you mean “drag their heels like recalcitrant toddlers because there’s a Democrat in the Oval Office and they wouldn’t sing Yankee Doodle if it would help his presidency” then you’d be right.
Casting Republicans as fiscally responsible makes as much sense as casting Don Knotts as Casanova.
Yet the President is claiming credit for a lower deficit, so they did his Presidency a favor by not letting him spend.
Neither is any threat to your way of life – neither was at any time in the past, so why now?
Must be nice for higher taxes to not be a threat to you. Are you also old enough that you won’t be receiving reduced SS benefits due to the depletion of the trust fund?
There are lots of things that are more of a threat to you than higher taxes. Lack of infrastructure upkeep and replacement–falling bridges, crumbling sewers, unsafe drinking water; poor education of American children; cutbacks in public health; substandard emergency services; layoffs of police; etc., etc., etc. I could go on and on. The list is practically endless.
You and your ilk are like people who spend no money on their house for 30 years, and then look around and wonder why the roof is gone and their toilet doesn’t work anymore.
You act as if the only way to get those things is with higher taxes. There are two things that the government doesn’t want to try: shifting money from lower priorities to higher priorities, and using money more efficiently. Any government that can’t do what you described with 20% of GDP to spend isn’t worth supporting. At some point you have to stop throwing good money after bad.
A better analogy is that you and your ilk are like people who keep on hiring the same people to work on your house and wondering why everything keeps on breaking over and over again.
What I am is someone who budgets for home repair and maintenance and keeps things within that budget by prioritizing, cost-cutting, and just doing it myself if possible. So my home is in reasonable shape, except for my indoor sliding doors which are broken. When I got the quote for repair or replacement it was way too high, so I’ll live with broken indoor sliding doors. There are more important things to spend money on. And that’s the problem with government and Democrats especially: failure to set priorities. When everything is your top priority, nothing is.
Some Democrats can set priorities. For Bernie Sanders, nothing is more important than inequality. For Al Gore, nothing is more important than the environment(at least as a non-politician, don’t know if that would change if he got back into politics). For Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership, no one really knows what their priorities are. And it shows in our government’s performance.
Most attempts to liken any government spending to a household are doomed to fail, but I’m going to try anyway. The federal gas tax hasn’t been raised since 1993. Now suppose you were a homeowner maintaining your house optimally in 1993. Now suppose you were told that you couldn’t ever spend a nickel more per year than you did in 1993. Could you maintain your house in 2015 using the same amount of money that you did in 1993? I dare say no. Everything costs more. Yet we expect government to maintain the roads in 2015 with the same money (even less, due to fuel efficient cars) as it did in 1993. Guess what- you can’t do it. You can piss and moan about how the eeevil eeevil government can’t do anything right, and if you tie its hands, it can’t. So fucking suck it up and raise the gas tax. Christ, every time someone farts in the middle east, the gas price goes up by a quarter anyway. Yet Republican politicians insist that raising gas taxes by a penny would be the end of western civilization.