I wonder if Bernie ever thought he'd actually make it to this point.
Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
-
-
He can, but the first two votes don't matter much in his case. Iowa and New Hampshire are much more Bernie's base, it was called months agoeven when his numbers were much lower that he could potentially win those and then get nothing else. Him having a lead there isn't really surprising.
But hey, starting momentum is good, and he's currently doing better overall than I'd ever hoped he could. He might beat Hillary yet. (It doesn't hurt that she's note liked very much The assumed candidate for the last three years, and who could presumably win against any given republican currently running… but no one really wants her.)
You could say that about New Hampshire since it neighbors Vermont, but Iowa is in the midwest and has a better lead on Hillary than I think even Obama did in '08. The dem nom is going to be a much, much tighter race than many believe.
-
I like how we've gone from Hillary is an unstoppable beast who no one can beat to Bernie JUST MIGHT PULL IT OFF.
Sadly, the opposite holds true for Trump…
Trump vs Sanders 2016 WHO WOULDA THUNK IT!?!
-
Well, I wouldn't count out Hillary just yet. Bernie might be the obviously more appealing candidate but Hillary Clinton still has…umm... Bill Clinton? No, but seriously, I think Hillary Clinton's biggest strength is that she's seen as the "safe" candidate. Way more safe than the 'socialist' Bernie Sanders, lol.
And I still stand by my conviction that Donald Trump will not be the party's pick for president of the United States. The GOP is not so dumb to throw away an election like that. Trump does not energize the Republican party like Bernie energizes the Dems. Trump just makes headlines and gets media grabbing attention for the stupid things he says. The only people he revitalizes are the far-right folks in his party. The moderate Republican will not flock out in the numbers necessary to vote Donald Trump as our next president. It just won't happen.
-
Wouldn't having Bernie against Trump be dangerous. I can see the voters settling for Hillary if it's either this or Trump, but what happens when the opposition is a self declared socialist? I don't fear for the democrat but more for the undecided voters and the votes you need from the other side.
-
Iowa has a similar track record to New Hampshire when it comes to predicting the eventual nominee. In the eleven elections since they began using the Caucus system, seven of them correctly predicted the Democratic nominee for President but two of those were largely unopposed incumbents.
The caucus system is a weird animal anyway since it attracts a different breed of voter than the open primary system does.
South Carolina is the first open primary election and that'll give us a better idea of how well Bernie will compete against her.
-
Wouldn't having Bernie against Trump be dangerous. I can see the voters settling for Hillary if it's either this or Trump, but what happens when the opposition is a self declared socialist?
At this point the "socialist" bit has been thrown out and explained enough over these several months that I think most people don't have a problem with it at this point, because the case has been made that socialist is "good for people and helping out the poor" rather than "communism lol".
-
@TLC:
I like how we've gone from Hillary is an unstoppable beast who no one can beat to Bernie JUST MIGHT PULL IT OFF.
The shift in tone here has finally caught up to what every non-major media source has been saying for months. And now the major ones are finally uttering his name. I was reading front page stories all last week about how shaken up Hilary's campaign is by Bernie's momentum. Feelsgood.
And I still stand by my conviction that Donald Trump will not be the party's pick for president of the United States. The GOP is not so dumb to throw away an election like that. Trump does not energize the Republican party like Bernie energizes the Dems. Trump just makes headlines and gets media grabbing attention for the stupid things he says. The only people he revitalizes are the far-right folks in his party. The moderate Republican will not flock out in the numbers necessary to vote Donald Trump as our next president. It just won't happen.
Well it would be too much to expect the thread to shift on all of it's positions at once.
I've gone over this argument before. It's weak. It's even weaker now that it's between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz. No one cares about those two. Even if you can't see people voting for Trump, and his polling has him destroying the others, do you still think Republicans will come out in large enough numbers in support of Cruz or Rubio to stop him? Because that's what it's going to take at this point.
People voting for Ted Cruz.
-
The shift in tone here has finally caught up to what every non-major media source has been saying for months. And now the major ones are finally uttering his name. I was reading front page stories all last week about how shaken up Hilary's campaign is by Bernie's momentum. Feelsgood.
Exactly what tone are you talking about? That Bernie Sanders has a chance to beat Hillary Clinton? Sorry to break it to you but we always knew he had at least a chance. We always saw Hillary Clinton as the establishment candidate with the most name recognition and initial support but at the same time we saw Bernie Sanders as the guy who garnered the most interest and was really well liked, so of course we knew he stood a chance. Hell, my first post in this thread was about Bernie Sanders.
That was a few months ago and as of right now Hillary Clinton is still the establishment candidate and Bernie Sanders is still the guy that everyone really likes. Soo…really the only thing that has changed is Bernie Sanders catching up in the polls and us liking him even more?
Well it would be too much to expect the thread to shift on all of it's positions at once.
I've gone over this argument before. It's weak. It's even weaker now that it's between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz. No one cares about those two. Even if you can't see people voting for Trump, and his polling has him destroying the others, do you still think Republicans will come out in large enough numbers in support of Cruz or Rubio to stop him? Because that's what it's going to take at this point.
People voting for Ted Cruz.
Hey, I'll shift my position on Donald Trump if he is actually selected as the Republican nominee. I'll be the first to admit I was wrong and you know what? I hope I'm wrong. I hope they do pick him because that's all but guarantees for them to lose the election. In the meantime I'm 90% sure my weak argument will pan out to be correct but I'll leave some hopeful space for me to be incorrect.
-
The cool thing about the poison being either Cruz or Trump is that the establishment GOP hates both their guts and aren't likely to give either full support.
-
Which leaves Rubio and even to me he is the most appealing out of the 3. For the life of me I can't tell why he is losing to Ted Cruz.
-
I'm sticking with my position on Trump. His campaign has two massive flaws; first, he's made too much of it around everybody else being a loser and him being a winner. Any chink in that armor is really going to hurt him. Second, those setbacks are going to be made worse by his basic personality. He's a very brittle person who can't take criticism and would meltdown if the focus ever switched to him. That's not to say that he can't win the nomination; the primary calendar is favorable to him especially with people refusing to drop out and targeting each other instead of him. If Iowa and New Hampshire make a bunch of them drop out and he underperforms in either of the early states, there's a pretty good chance that the wheels will come off his campaign quickly.
-
Exactly what tone are you talking about? That Bernie Sanders has a chance to beat Hillary Clinton? Sorry to break it to you but we always knew he had at least a chance. We always saw Hillary Clinton as the establishment candidate with the most name recognition and initial support but at the same time we saw Bernie Sanders as the guy who garnered the most interest and was really well liked, so of course we knew he stood a chance. Hell, my first post in this thread was about Bernie Sanders.
Eh. Just because every comment was prefaced with "I really like Bernie, I hope he wins" doesn't mean that they didn't all in end "he has no chance against Hilary" "Hilary will be the nomination"
I'm sticking with my position on Trump. His campaign has two massive flaws; first, he's made too much of it around everybody else being a loser and him being a winner. Any chink in that armor is really going to hurt him. Second, those setbacks are going to be made worse by his basic personality. He's a very brittle person who can't take criticism and would meltdown if the focus ever switched to him. That's not to say that he can't win the nomination; the primary calendar is favorable to him especially with people refusing to drop out and targeting each other instead of him. If Iowa and New Hampshire make a bunch of them drop out and he underperforms in either of the early states, there's a pretty good chance that the wheels will come off his campaign quickly.
But there's no indication that he will underperform in those states. Polls have been wrong before, but these aren't insider polls reflecting what the party wants to hear being reported by sources who want to tell the party what they want to hear. He's a terrible candidate but if he pulls through, which everything is indicating, that momentum will more than likely lock up the nomination for him.
-
Eh. Just because every comment was prefaced with "I really like Bernie, I hope he wins" doesn't mean that they didn't all in end "he has no chance against Hilary" "Hilary will be the nomination"
Yes, there were a few comments setting Hillary as the guaranteed nominee but saying all the comments followed suit is inaccurate. I believe most people saw her as the one with the better chance and I could argue strongly she is still in that position today.
-
I believe most people saw her as the one with the better chance and I could argue strongly she is still in that position today.
The odds for her being the nominee are still over sixty percent by most accounts with FiveThirtyEight's Endorsement Primary putting it a lot higher. It's slipped a few points lately but when was the last time she had any positive news coverage?
-
-
This goes back before the Free Masons, I tell ya.
-
George Takei on Trump's Muslim ban:
[Hide]
[/Hide]Hidden for length, but posted for truth.
-
It's great how he puts it because he isn't so much saying "Trump's a horrible racist so it could happened again", as he's saying it's the hysteria Trump is whipping up and taking advantage of.
I keep seeing people saying things like "Oh Trump isn't so bad because he doesn't really believe what he says, calm down. :wassat:" when honestly that misses the fucking point by a mile.
Watching Trump rallies you don't get freaked out so much by him and his goofy huckster crap, it's the audience. It's the forces he's unleashing and giving shape to.Hell that's how we got in this whole mess of far-right wing insanity. The older more moderate Republicans who didn't really believe half of what their audience liked to hear. And now the GOP establishment is near helpless with their own flock.
-
@Monkey:
Watching Trump rallies you don't get freaked out so much by him and his goofy huckster crap, it's the audience. It's the forces he's unleashing and giving shape to.
-
Wherein American politics becomes Harry Potter.
-
Eh. Just because every comment was prefaced with "I really like Bernie, I hope he wins" doesn't mean that they didn't all in end "he has no chance against Hilary" "Hilary will be the nomination"
I was one of these and I'll explain myself.
Looking at the two candidates, when I look at Bernie I see the candidate that I agree with the most. In a perfect world, Everything Bernie wants is what I'd like to eventually happen in this country. If he got the nom, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
However, The things Bernie wants are VERY far reaching and extreme. He wants to make sweeping changes to the economy, the tax code, the political system, our healthcare system and a lot more.
Frankly, everything He's campaigning on is drastically unrealistic.
Take Healthcare as a big example. We can compare this because it's actually a thing this country has gone through and debated ad nausea. When we were first talking about Heathcare, in the debates that ended up with the country getting the Affordable Care Act, the exact thing Bernie wants, Universal Public Healthcare, WAS a thing Obama and the rest of the Democrats supported. Bernie himself even pushed an amendment specifically to get one added during the proceedings.
It didn't get passed because Republicans fought TOOTH AND NAIL against it. The ACA we got came from a lot of compromises and changes, and while it's not perfect, it's way better than what we had before. Also, wanna know what happened to Bernie's proposed amendment? Republicans used a procedural loophole to cause it to never even go to vote.Bernie being president wouldn't have changed that, an Executive order for example can't stop that procedural loophole or force any part of his proposal through. ULTIMATELY, he'd still have to go to congress and try to get it pushed the normal way, and there's NO Way he's getting that passed. The Republicans simply wouldn't allow it.
This same prediction can be applied to almost everything he's campaigning on. There's no way we get anything he's campaigning on, at least not at the scope he's talking about. He will either have to abandon a lot of the things he's promising, and/or compromise a lot of these things down severely.
When you take that into account, I just fail to see how he'd do much different than Hillary. Almost every Issue I can think of that I care about that Bernie wants to fight for is the kind of thing where I think Bernie either has NO chance on getting what he wants, or Hillary would be able to do just as good a job fighting for.
Like the ACA, Reproductive and LGBT rights. I don't think Bernie as president would ever get a Single Payer system passed, but he'd definitely veto any attempts to dismantle it. He recognizes that while it's not as far reaching as he wants, we're better off with it in place in the meantime. Hillary, likewise, would veto any such attempt. LGBT rights similarly, are already trending in the right direction and don't need a president's help beyond Vetoing any bills that attempt to block them, same with attempts to undermine Rowe v. Wade or planned parenthood.
Hilary, I think, would be better in some respects specifically for the reasons some Bernie supporters are against her. She's more of politician than Bernie, and knows a bit better how to work the system.
I mean, we really don't know how Bernie would respond to these yet. When faced with Republican opposition, would he try to debate and compromise or would he dig in his heels and stand on his principals? That definitely would make me respect him more, but wouldn't get anything actually accomplished.
To sum up, the way they both come across to me is more is:
Bernie's answer to a broken system would be to fight a losing battle trying to fix the system.
Hillary's would be to game the existing system as best she can to try and actually get something done. -
I was one of these and I'll explain myself.
Looking at the two candidates, when I look at Bernie I see the candidate that I agree with the most. In a perfect world, Everything Bernie wants is what I'd like to eventually happen in this country. If he got the nom, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
However, The things Bernie wants are VERY far reaching and extreme. He wants to make sweeping changes to the economy, the tax code, the political system, our healthcare system and a lot more.
Frankly, everything He's campaigning on is drastically unrealistic.
Take Healthcare as a big example. We can compare this because it's actually a thing this country has gone through and debated ad nausea. When we were first talking about Heathcare, in the debates that ended up with the country getting the Affordable Care Act, the exact thing Bernie wants, Universal Public Healthcare, WAS a thing Obama and the rest of the Democrats supported. Bernie himself even pushed an amendment specifically to get one added during the proceedings.
It didn't get passed because Republicans fought TOOTH AND NAIL against it. The ACA we got came from a lot of compromises and changes, and while it's not perfect, it's way better than what we had before. Also, wanna know what happened to Bernie's proposed amendment? Republicans used a procedural loophole to cause it to never even go to vote.Bernie being president wouldn't have changed that, an Executive order for example can't stop that procedural loophole or force any part of his proposal through. ULTIMATELY, he'd still have to go to congress and try to get it pushed the normal way, and there's NO Way he's getting that passed. The Republicans simply wouldn't allow it.
This same prediction can be applied to almost everything he's campaigning on. There's no way we get anything he's campaigning on, at least not at the scope he's talking about. He will either have to abandon a lot of the things he's promising, and/or compromise a lot of these things down severely.
When you take that into account, I just fail to see how he'd do much different than Hillary. Almost every Issue I can think of that I care about that Bernie wants to fight for is the kind of thing where I think Bernie either has NO chance on getting what he wants, or Hillary would be able to do just as good a job fighting for.
Like the ACA, Reproductive and LGBT rights. I don't think Bernie as president would ever get a Single Payer system passed, but he'd definitely veto any attempts to dismantle it. He recognizes that while it's not as far reaching as he wants, we're better off with it in place in the meantime. Hillary, likewise, would veto any such attempt. LGBT rights similarly, are already trending in the right direction and don't need a president's help beyond Vetoing any bills that attempt to block them, same with attempts to undermine Rowe v. Wade or planned parenthood.
Hilary, I think, would be better in some respects specifically for the reasons some Bernie supporters are against her. She's more of politician than Bernie, and knows a bit better how to work the system.
I mean, we really don't know how Bernie would respond to these yet. When faced with Republican opposition, would he try to debate and compromise or would he dig in his heels and stand on his principals? That definitely would make me respect him more, but wouldn't get anything actually accomplished.
To sum up, the way they both come across to me is more is:
Bernie's answer to a broken system would be to fight a losing battle trying to fix the system.
Hillary's would be to game the existing system as best she can to try and actually get something done.Excellently put. I like Bernie, I like his attitude, and I like what he's saying, but I don't know how much he'll actually be able to accomplish in the executive office. One article I read smartly pointed out that the bulk of Bernie's policies are focused on economics, where he can't act unilaterally and will have to fight Congress. The actual abilities of the President play to Hillary's strengths, especially in foreign affairs. She's a better politician, and sometimes that's what you need.
I really want to vote for Bernie and what he represents, but I honestly think Hillary would make the better President and statesman. I'm torn. If only Hillary's goals were a little more ambitious and progressive, it would be an easier choice.
If Trump or Cruz has a big lead, I'm voting Hillary to watch her eviscerate them in a general election debate.
-
@Rogues':
George Takei on Trump's Muslim ban:
[Hide][qimg]http://i.imgur.com/LPY0DVk.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/88nmfwE.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/pQFZBUa.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/PUxDdnJ.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/FgHAZCJ.png[/qimg][/Hide]Hidden for length, but posted for truth.
Of all the things to come from the US elections, I secretly can't wait for someone to tell me to "go back where I came from" so I can lay a verse dripping with sarcasm about the virtuous and conservative islands of Trinidad and Tobago, land of the steel pan drum, 3-day carnival, and soca wine :ninja:
-
There is only one positive thing Trump ever caused in my eyes. The brief comeback of Tina Fey as S. Palin in SNL.
-
@Rogues':
George Takei on Trump's Muslim ban:
[Hide]
[/Hide]Hidden for length, but posted for truth.
As a kid I liked George for his character in Star Trek, as an adult I love him for his personality and willingness to say that an idiot is an idiot.,
-
Trump is going to boycott the next debate because Megyn Kelly was mean to him.
-
Trump is going to boycott the next debate because Megyn Kelly was mean to him.
Looks like Trump won't be able to bullshit or defend himself in person.
-
Trump is going to boycott the next debate because Megyn Kelly was mean to him.
Looks like Trump won't be able to bullshit or defend himself in person.
Seems like a smart move to me from a strategic point of view. He has the most to lose by a bad performance so close to the Iowa caucus. Megyn Kelly or not- I don't think he would attend this debate.
-
Huckabee's campaign (He still has one?) did, uhm… this.
-
Ironically Huck could probably learn something from the message of the actual song, although I suppose you could say he'll never get to the other side.
-
I was one of these and I'll explain myself.
Looking at the two candidates, when I look at Bernie I see the candidate that I agree with the most. In a perfect world, Everything Bernie wants is what I'd like to eventually happen in this country. If he got the nom, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
However, The things Bernie wants are VERY far reaching and extreme. He wants to make sweeping changes to the economy, the tax code, the political system, our healthcare system and a lot more.
Frankly, everything He's campaigning on is drastically unrealistic.
Take Healthcare as a big example. We can compare this because it's actually a thing this country has gone through and debated ad nausea. When we were first talking about Heathcare, in the debates that ended up with the country getting the Affordable Care Act, the exact thing Bernie wants, Universal Public Healthcare, WAS a thing Obama and the rest of the Democrats supported. Bernie himself even pushed an amendment specifically to get one added during the proceedings.
It didn't get passed because Republicans fought TOOTH AND NAIL against it. The ACA we got came from a lot of compromises and changes, and while it's not perfect, it's way better than what we had before. Also, wanna know what happened to Bernie's proposed amendment? Republicans used a procedural loophole to cause it to never even go to vote.Bernie being president wouldn't have changed that, an Executive order for example can't stop that procedural loophole or force any part of his proposal through. ULTIMATELY, he'd still have to go to congress and try to get it pushed the normal way, and there's NO Way he's getting that passed. The Republicans simply wouldn't allow it.
This same prediction can be applied to almost everything he's campaigning on. There's no way we get anything he's campaigning on, at least not at the scope he's talking about. He will either have to abandon a lot of the things he's promising, and/or compromise a lot of these things down severely.
When you take that into account, I just fail to see how he'd do much different than Hillary. Almost every Issue I can think of that I care about that Bernie wants to fight for is the kind of thing where I think Bernie either has NO chance on getting what he wants, or Hillary would be able to do just as good a job fighting for.
Like the ACA, Reproductive and LGBT rights. I don't think Bernie as president would ever get a Single Payer system passed, but he'd definitely veto any attempts to dismantle it. He recognizes that while it's not as far reaching as he wants, we're better off with it in place in the meantime. Hillary, likewise, would veto any such attempt. LGBT rights similarly, are already trending in the right direction and don't need a president's help beyond Vetoing any bills that attempt to block them, same with attempts to undermine Rowe v. Wade or planned parenthood.
Hilary, I think, would be better in some respects specifically for the reasons some Bernie supporters are against her. She's more of politician than Bernie, and knows a bit better how to work the system.
I mean, we really don't know how Bernie would respond to these yet. When faced with Republican opposition, would he try to debate and compromise or would he dig in his heels and stand on his principals? That definitely would make me respect him more, but wouldn't get anything actually accomplished.
To sum up, the way they both come across to me is more is:
Bernie's answer to a broken system would be to fight a losing battle trying to fix the system.
Hillary's would be to game the existing system as best she can to try and actually get something done.You don't start bargaining at the lowest possible level, you start high and then go to the middle, anything less is already admitting defeat.
Bernie knows perfectly fine how the system works, he's not naive.
He's just not willing to compromise his own morals ala Clinton/Obama at the expense of the American people, the latter of which who as I don't hate in the same vein that most people do, has shown to be as establishment as they come and a bold face liar when it comes to Bernie Sanders, his policies, her record, laws, and her relationship with Banks/corporations, even has people like Gary Gensler (not a tough regulator) in her campaign.
Of course this goes back to what you said, she is a politician (one who takes money from prison lobyists and then tries to present herself as a champion for black Americans), and being a politician sadly requires manipulation and lying among other dirty tactics, and she is more traditionally qualified for the job.
But being more "qualified" and having more experience doesn't mean she'll have the best judgement, as Bernie has said.
And while yes she's weathered through years of republican attacks, and Bernie strangely has gotten respect from a lot of them (which will change when the machine turns on him if he's in the general), there's nothing that suggest's he won't be able to handle it, especially considering that he's not portraying and image and wears the stuff they'll attack him with as armor, and he's demonstrated himself to have a very strong will over the years.
And Bernie isn't just heart, he's a career politician and has made good political moves within this campaign, so while he might not be Clinton, he has the skill set for the job.
I'm pretty sure Bernie will know when to compromise and when to push for his policies, especially when he's worked well with Republican's in congress to get VA things done, known when to whittle down bills he was pushing to get them through and get some of what he wants rather than none at all, and unlike Hilary doesn't call the Republicans his greatest enemy and while they will try to destroy him, it's not like they'll like Hilary any more, and he was apparently a very efficient mayor.
What Hilary would do is get some things done, and maybe align with the republican party on some things that will help the 1%.
You fail to see how much different he would be than Hilary? Well here's one thing, her election would demoralize the party and there would be no hope to get republicans voted out of local/senate elections and the liberal narrative will be barely pushed forward.
If Bernie is elected, he would help revitalize the party, build up more of a chance to sweep elections (you know what's needed to get what he's done through), and push the discussion on these issues exponentially more forward.
Will I vote for Hilary if Bernie doesn't win the primary? Yes.
Through gritted teeth and clenched fists, but yes I will, and overall I think she'd be an okay/good president.
But will I pass up the opportunity to get a real progressive who cares about the American people and pushes policies I wholeheartedly believe in even if he only get's a third of what he want's to get achieved done policy wise?
No. -
You don't start bargaining at the lowest possible level, you start high and then go to the middle, anything less is already admitting defeat.
Bernie knows perfectly fine how the system works, he's not naive.
He's just not willing to compromise his own morals ala Clinton/Obama at the expense of the American people, the latter of which who as I don't hate in the same vein that most people do, has shown to be as establishment as they come and a bold face liar when it comes to Bernie Sanders, his policies, her record, laws, and her relationship with Banks/corporations, even has people like Gary Gensler (not a tough regulator) in her campaign.
Of course this goes back to what you said, she is a politician (one who takes money from prison lobyists and then tries to present herself as a champion for black Americans), and being a politician sadly requires manipulation and lying among other dirty tactics, and she is more traditionally qualified for the job.
But being more "qualified" and having more experience doesn't mean she'll have the best judgement, as Bernie has said.
And while yes she's weathered through years of republican attacks, and Bernie strangely has gotten respect from a lot of them (which will change when the machine turns on him if he's in the general), there's nothing that suggest's he won't be able to handle it, especially considering that he's not portraying and image and wears the stuff they'll attack him with as armor, and he's demonstrated himself to have a very strong will over the years.
And Bernie isn't just heart, he's a career politician and has made good political moves within this campaign, so while he might not be Clinton, he has the skill set for the job.
I'm pretty sure Bernie will know when to compromise and when to push for his policies, especially when he's worked well with Republican's in congress to get VA things done, known when to whittle down bills he was pushing to get them through and get some of what he wants rather than none at all, and unlike Hilary doesn't call the Republicans his greatest enemy and while they will try to destroy him, it's not like they'll like Hilary any more, and he was apparently a very efficient mayor.
What Hilary would do is get some things done, and maybe align with the republican party on some things that will help the 1%.
You fail to see how much different he would be than Hilary? Well here's one thing, her election would demoralize the party and there would be no hope to get republicans voted out of local/senate elections and the liberal narrative will be barely pushed forward.
If Bernie is elected, he would help revitalize the party, build up more of a chance to sweep elections (you know what's needed to get what he's done through), and push the discussion on these issues exponentially more forward.
Will I vote for Hilary if Bernie doesn't win the primary? Yes.
Through gritted teeth and clenched fists, but yes I will, and overall I think she'd be an okay/good president.
But will I pass up the opportunity to get a real progressive who cares about the American people and pushes policies I wholeheartedly believe in even if he only get's a third of what he want's to get achieved done policy wise?
No.Unless some major turnover occurs in congress the idea that Bernie can just propose all the leftistist things possible and wind up with more progressive results than Obama did…doesn't really seem very true at all.
Part of the process is also seducing moderates (be it people or congress members), and when the overton window isn't that far over that's pretty hard to do by just starting all he way over on your extreme of the American picture. That extreme being Vermont.
VA bills are one thing that's honestly extremely easy to be bi-partisan on, other stuff not so much.
Selling him as really capable of contending with across the aisle otherwise falls pretty flat experience wise, being a representative of one sort or another for Vermont means he had to only worry about Vermont voters when he was in congress. And Vermont is the most liberal state in the union. This means he could go in swinging for progressive stuff without really a care in the world about how that comes across to the wider American electorate and rivals in congress. Great for him and Vermont but how feasible that strength is when in the position of executive? Not so sure.Well here's one thing, her election would demoralize the party
No it wouldn't.
and there would be no hope to get republicans voted out of local/senate elections
What does this have to do with Hillary or Bernie?
Bernie's mere presence and huge success so far as a candidate is exciting and overton pushing in of itself, but I have my doubts that he'd really be capable if he went all the way sometimes is all. I do however think given a Hillary victory that she should seek to place him as a Secretary of something or other, definitely in something related to either economics or healthcare.
Which is kind of my other thing with him. He comes across very much as a specialist, very passionate about Economic-Left stuff that sometimes bleeds into Social-Left stuff. And America does seriously need major progress in our Economic-Left world, it being probably our Achilles Heel in all things. But I have yet to really be convinced he can spread that passion around quite so much on foreign policy for instance even though I might prefer his stances to Hillary's. It sometimes seems like he's really only coming round' just now to fully expanding his thoughts on arenas outside his passion zone I guess.I think I just have some feeling he's a bit detached in spite of his best intentions sometimes. All coming back to Vermont and all really. Yes it's awesome he voted against the Iraq war when most Democrats were terrified of being witch hunted by the jingoistic insanity of those times. But he didn't have to worry about jingoistic insanity in Vermont. It's a good even great position, but it wasn't a very tested one to make. In Vermont he didn't have to really worry. He's gotten by on low stakes. Likewise do you ever wonder why it seems so much of the black population doesn't seem to care so much about him? Pretty sure part of that is the same skepticism, that for all the right positions and good opinions he may have… that a lot of that is almost sorta third hand. It's an old problem with the economic "far-left" and far-left alike in the US among lots of whites. Really focusing on economic damage to blacks and other groups is great, but it ain't the whole issue. And I know Bernie knows that, but still maybe he knows that more like he read about it? Y'know?
And heck maybe even part of what I'm saying here is god forbid a guy like Bernie be forced out of his Vermont habitat into something like the presidency, because so much of his admirable progressive quality would be ground down muddied and sullied in the process. It would have to be.btw does Bernie even have experience bargaining from an extreme?
I mean I get the idea, in fact I respect the idea more and more due to Republicans hardly caring about the substance of a democrat economic proposal (they would call it communist or whatever no matter what). But that's a real game and long con in of itself right? A tough trick to properly pull off. And well...uh...elected representatives of Vermont I don't think have to play that game.Think like this maybe.
Would Bernie and others who hopefully might be galvanized to follow in his footsteps be more useful as a tug from the left extreme on the moderate democrats like Hillary? Than they would be if somehow actually elected into the current climate of US politics at the top? Isn't that actually a more realistic way to pull the overton window leftward? Obama didn't spearhead the LGB progress during his term until the window was felt to shift, and once it did he was able to lean that way. Likewise for the Supreme Court judges. The executive isn't necessarily the creature that creates the pioneering, and maybe isn't really capable of it in most cases (with a stubborn fucking ass congress for instance). So maybe the progressives work better pressuring the executive. And as long as that executive is at least a moderate dem that shouldn't be too much to expect.--- Update From New Post Merge ---
Also I still think Hillary's issue is that she's kind of a shit campaigner. Because every time I see Hillary in action I end up impressed on some level.
As Secretary of State I tended to be impressed. What recollections I have of her arguing things both as First Lady (lol real foggy memory here) and as senator, she came off as tough and into the thing's she was pressing. And her performance at the Benghazi bullshit hearing was also really impressive and laudable.
When she's actually doing a job and pressing an issue I find her essentially authentic, good at it, and tough. And heck I kind of want tough right now. Both toward the Republicans and the Putins alike in the world (not so much toward the Irans though, this I still don't like). Obama's calm ice man thing was great, but maybe it's time for heat miser tactics for the next 4-8 years to see what can get done via that....Anyway though the point I'm making here is that CAMPAIGN Clinton on the other hand does often rub me kinda wrong in the same way as most people. She can seem overly eager to please, over posed, and perhaps just generally way too game playing.
I don't think she's good at it! She's no Obama! But if I can find her not like that at all in regards to actually doing the jobs? Isn't that what matters?
She seems psychologically to me to be the sort that deeply badly wants this, enough to unfortunately come across kinda bleh in the process. But the kind who once she has it, will be a pretty firm and tough person. One who unquestionably has lots of experience tangling with the Republicans in congress, even if much of that would have been as unofficial advisor and cabinet member to her husband in the 90's.And if Trump gets the nomination, I have a hard time seeing Bernie stand up to that guy effectively. Trump plays nasty and dirty, Bernie's pissed off but earnest Jewish grampa thing might really end up with him flustered and helpless. Clinton on the other hand I think can slay the dragon. And that dragon seriously needs to be slayed.
-
@Monkey:
And if Trump gets the nomination, I have a hard time seeing Bernie stand up to that guy effectively. Trump plays nasty and dirty, Bernie's pissed off but earnest Jewish grampa thing might really end up with him flustered and helpless. Clinton on the other hand I think can slay the dragon. And that dragon seriously needs to be slayed.
That's what I was thinking this morning. If Trump gets the GOP nomination, which seems very likely at this point. (God help me if I don't pinch myself every time I say that), I feel like Clinton and her campaign can really do some good work campaigning against him, in an effective way.
Also, I came across this article, which I found interesting, if not high blood-pressure inducing. It's a bit long, but it's a nice summarization of Trump and the people who support him. With some vague snark (which I am always in support of).
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/politics/donald-trump-voters-2016-election/index.html
With such highlights as:
People still questioning Obama' religion, as if it matters (now with transphobic analogy!):
For many Trump fans, the candidate's once prominent role in the so-called Obama "birther" movement has left a lasting impression.The skeptics, dispersed throughout Trump rallies, have serious misgivings about the President's U.S. citizenship and Christian faith more than four years after Obama publicly released his birth certificate.
"Islam is traced patrilineally. I am a Muslim if my father is Muslim. In that sense, it is undeniable that Barack Obama was born a Muslim," Michael Rooney said at a Trump event in Worcester, Massachusetts, in November. (Obama is a Christian. He has said his father was born a Muslim and later became an atheist.)
Rooney, a respiratory therapist in his late 40s, likened Obama's Christian faith to Caitlyn Jenner's recent gender transition: "It is true that he now identifies as a Christian in the same sense that Bruce Jenner identifies as a woman.""As a straight white man in America, I feel oppressed!":
Taking their cue from Trump, these individuals are calling themselves the "silent majority." Some say they suffer from "reverse discrimination."Rhett Benhoff, a middle-aged white man at a December Trump campaign event in Raleigh, North Carolina, said discrimination against whites is "absolutely" real.
"I mean, it seems like we really go overboard to make sure all these other nationalities nowadays and colors have their fair shake of it, but no one's looking out for the white guy anymore," he said.Xenophobia is the new
blackwhite!"Islam is not a religion. It's a violent blood cult. OK?" said Hoyt Wood, a 68-year-old military veteran waiting to hear Trump speak aboard the U.S.S. Yorktown in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. "All they know is violence, that's all they know."At the same rally, 55-year-old Susan Kemmelin said, "We can't look at a Muslim and tell if they're a terrorist or friendly."
Robert Engelkes, a 45-year-old corn and soybean farmer from Dike, Iowa, pointed out that there is historical precedent for targeting one group.
"What did we do in World War II? We put all the Japanese in internment camps," said Engelkes, who was standing outside a Trump event in Des Moines. "We had to do something with them."Kids these days!
"Politics is supposed to be boring," said Eakins, who will turn 18 by primary day. "So when three 18-year-old kids are driving out 30 minutes to go to a Trump rally, I mean – that's a movement."
And many more!!
-
It's true. I have always considered religion to be a hereditary trait.
That's why I've always been against mission trips by Christians because there's no point in spreading the good news.
-
As far as demoralizing the party, I do remember reading a report from some analyst comparing predicted voter maps based on which democratic candidate gets the nomination and showing Bernie being more successful. I recall they attributed Bernie's advantage to being able to motivate and mobilize the youth vote and I hate that I can't find this thing to source since I don't think I'm savvy enough to parse it. I could buy that being the case, though. I don't think most of my friends would be as politically concerned as they are now if it weren't for the possibility of nominating Bernie Sanders.
I'd vote for Bernie to even see him taking a crack at pushing for his extremes. What's with all the resignation? Extremes haven't been on the executive menu within my lifetime or beyond. How are we so sure of what they taste like? I'm sick of hearing about realism and compromise when we haven't even had a chance to try an alternative.
What I really want to see is this boil down to Trump vs. Sanders because they represent popular candidates that are well outside their party's establishment. There's a lot of divisions created by this that really give us a chance to split the middle and see where their loyalties are. Which democrats will be flushed out as right-wingers when they tacitly support Trump by neglecting Sanders' campaign? Will the right finally be forced to split from anti-intellectual and racist rhetoric when they see the fervor Trump's summoned is too far for them, or will they forever mark themselves with the decision to join it? This would be the best condition for revolution this nation's seen for a long time. That itself could go a long way in priming the political ground for Sanders to have a chance at being effective, but would have an impact even if he isn't.
-
@Monkey:
Unless some major turnover occurs in congress the idea that Bernie can just propose all the leftistist things possible and wind up with more progressive results than Obama did…doesn't really seem very true at all.
Part of the process is also seducing moderates (be it people or congress members), and when the overton window isn't that far over that's pretty hard to do by just starting all he way over on your extreme of the American picture. That extreme being Vermont.
VA bills are one thing that's honestly extremely easy to be bi-partisan on, other stuff not so much.
Selling him as really capable of contending with across the aisle otherwise falls pretty flat experience wise, being a representative of one sort or another for Vermont means he had to only worry about Vermont voters when he was in congress. And Vermont is the most liberal state in the union. This means he could go in swinging for progressive stuff without really a care in the world about how that comes across to the wider American electorate and rivals in congress. Great for him and Vermont but how feasible that strength is when in the position of executive? Not so sure.No it wouldn't.
What does this have to do with Hillary or Bernie?
Bernie's mere presence and huge success so far as a candidate is exciting and overton pushing in of itself, but I have my doubts that he'd really be capable if he went all the way sometimes is all. I do however think given a Hillary victory that she should seek to place him as a Secretary of something or other, definitely in something related to either economics or healthcare.
Which is kind of my other thing with him. He comes across very much as a specialist, very passionate about Economic-Left stuff that sometimes bleeds into Social-Left stuff. And America does seriously need major progress in our Economic-Left world, it being probably our Achilles Heel in all things. But I have yet to really be convinced he can spread that passion around quite so much on foreign policy for instance even though I might prefer his stances to Hillary's. It sometimes seems like he's really only coming round' just now to fully expanding his thoughts on arenas outside his passion zone I guess.I think I just have some feeling he's a bit detached in spite of his best intentions sometimes. All coming back to Vermont and all really. Yes it's awesome he voted against the Iraq war when most Democrats were terrified of being witch hunted by the jingoistic insanity of those times. But he didn't have to worry about jingoistic insanity in Vermont. It's a good even great position, but it wasn't a very tested one to make. In Vermont he didn't have to really worry. He's gotten by on low stakes. Likewise do you ever wonder why it seems so much of the black population doesn't seem to care so much about him? Pretty sure part of that is the same skepticism, that for all the right positions and good opinions he may have... that a lot of that is almost sorta third hand. It's an old problem with the economic "far-left" and far-left alike in the US among lots of whites. Really focusing on economic damage to blacks and other groups is great, but it ain't the whole issue. And I know Bernie knows that, but still maybe he knows that more like he read about it? Y'know?
And heck maybe even part of what I'm saying here is god forbid a guy like Bernie be forced out of his Vermont habitat into something like the presidency, because so much of his admirable progressive quality would be ground down muddied and sullied in the process. It would have to be.btw does Bernie even have experience bargaining from an extreme?
I mean I get the idea, in fact I respect the idea more and more due to Republicans hardly caring about the substance of a democrat economic proposal (they would call it communist or whatever no matter what). But that's a real game and long con in of itself right? A tough trick to properly pull off. And well...uh...elected representatives of Vermont I don't think have to play that game.Think like this maybe.
Would Bernie and others who hopefully might be galvanized to follow in his footsteps be more useful as a tug from the left extreme on the moderate democrats like Hillary? Than they would be if somehow actually elected into the current climate of US politics at the top? Isn't that actually a more realistic way to pull the overton window leftward? Obama didn't spearhead the LGB progress during his term until the window was felt to shift, and once it did he was able to lean that way. Likewise for the Supreme Court judges. The executive isn't necessarily the creature that creates the pioneering, and maybe isn't really capable of it in most cases (with a stubborn fucking ass congress for instance). So maybe the progressives work better pressuring the executive. And as long as that executive is at least a moderate dem that shouldn't be too much to expect.--- Update From New Post Merge ---
Also I still think Hillary's issue is that she's kind of a shit campaigner. Because every time I see Hillary in action I end up impressed on some level.
As Secretary of State I tended to be impressed. What recollections I have of her arguing things both as First Lady (lol real foggy memory here) and as senator, she came off as tough and into the thing's she was pressing. And her performance at the Benghazi bullshit hearing was also really impressive and laudable.
When she's actually doing a job and pressing an issue I find her essentially authentic, good at it, and tough. And heck I kind of want tough right now. Both toward the Republicans and the Putins alike in the world (not so much toward the Irans though, this I still don't like). Obama's calm ice man thing was great, but maybe it's time for heat miser tactics for the next 4-8 years to see what can get done via that....Anyway though the point I'm making here is that CAMPAIGN Clinton on the other hand does often rub me kinda wrong in the same way as most people. She can seem overly eager to please, over posed, and perhaps just generally way too game playing.
I don't think she's good at it! She's no Obama! But if I can find her not like that at all in regards to actually doing the jobs? Isn't that what matters?
She seems psychologically to me to be the sort that deeply badly wants this, enough to unfortunately come across kinda bleh in the process. But the kind who once she has it, will be a pretty firm and tough person. One who unquestionably has lots of experience tangling with the Republicans in congress, even if much of that would have been as unofficial advisor and cabinet member to her husband in the 90's.And if Trump gets the nomination, I have a hard time seeing Bernie stand up to that guy effectively. Trump plays nasty and dirty, Bernie's pissed off but earnest Jewish grampa thing might really end up with him flustered and helpless. Clinton on the other hand I think can slay the dragon. And that dragon seriously needs to be slayed.
I think Bernie's presence as president would revitalize a lot of the base/independents in a way that would let them know that their voice can be heard, now does that mean this November we'll see a total blowout at the polls? No, but I believe we could see a possible voter increase and the arrival of more progressive politicians as we're seeing happen now, and that Bernie could use his station/pulpit to push awareness for the necessity of voting in the election, and keep the base going.
And I see what you're saying about Bernie and his experience, but my bias lead's me to believe in him, and maybe it's unfounded on some level (not completely), but everything I've watched and read of him, instills some level of faith in me.
And I see what you're saying about foreign policy, that's clearly Bernie's weakest point in debate in terms of articulating his points/overall knowledge (even though I agree with his foreign policy vision/philosophy more than Clintons) which is to be expected because that was her job, but because I agree with Bernie overall on what should be done, Hilary's experience doesn't sway me much when it'll probably lead to decisions I won't like.
And as a black man, I see the reason why Bernie has support problems among black Americans, as a reflection of Clinton having built up name recognition, establishment inroads with black groups, ignorance in the same vein as white voters, wary of him because he's an old white man, and push back from Bernie supporters who said "but he marched with Malcom" and he's "the best candidate for you" and criticized BLM, which leads to them grossly stereotyping the base and transmitting their feelings to Bernie.
Of course there are actual black people who disagree with Bernie's polices, or like him but believe Hilary is the best choice for winning/getting the job done, but I wholeheartedly believe it's less than those other options from what i've personally seen, but I can see that detachment you're talking about.
I do see Bernie totally being able to slay Trump, especially with the passion he brings to the race to fight against him, and he seems to be quick with retorts from what i've seen, and watching old debates with him, and seeing how firey he get's when fighting for what he believes in, I believe he can cut through Trump as well as Hilary.
And lastly I agree that Hilary is competent, and she could very well be a fine president, she's just not the president I want (though if it comes to it I will vote for her). -
@Badass:
"Islam is traced patrilineally. I am a Muslim if my father is Muslim. In that sense, it is undeniable that Barack Obama was born a Muslim," Michael Rooney said at a Trump event in Worcester, Massachusetts, in November. (Obama is a Christian. He has said his father was born a Muslim and later became an atheist.)
Rooney, a respiratory therapist in his late 40s, likened Obama's Christian faith to Caitlyn Jenner's recent gender transition: "It is true that he now identifies as a Christian in the same sense that Bruce Jenner identifies as a woman."Worcester? Motherfucker I know you got some Jewish or yeah half-Jewish neighbors or maybe some sort of people somewhere you know of. Would you go up to the guy/gal who married and converted Catholic and tell them they're still a religious Jew? Naw, don't think you'd do that.
Not to mention that entire thing is an artifact in the conservative orthodox forms of Judaism hardly given more than amused lip service by average Jews.
In Islam it's even more friggin' meaningless given "Muslim" is not an ethnicity at the same time. Everything about that is so stupid it hurts.Robert Engelkes, a 45-year-old corn and soybean farmer from Dike, Iowa, pointed out that there is historical precedent for targeting one group.
"What did we do in World War II? We put all the Japanese in internment camps," said Engelkes, who was standing outside a Trump event in Des Moines. "We had to do something with them."Jesus christ.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I think Bernie's presence as president would revitalize a lot of the base/independents in a way that would let them know that their voice can be heard
This makes it sound like you think there's a silent majority of social-democrats in the US whove been frustrated this whole time and only now have someone to represent them.
If there's anything interesting about Bernie to me it's his potential to reach out to moderate people who are used to scare word socialism. The same people who approve of Obamacare when you don't call it Obamacare, and actually communicate real substance of left-economics to people willing to hear it that aren't aware.
I think that's a thing.
But some frustrated silent majority? Naw man.
Also that thing I mentioned I think would be quite brittle once Bernie has the president crown, and polarization begins again. I think again he'd be more capable of communicating such things NOT on the throne. I don't think in the current climate the executive has that power if a leftist.No, but I believe we could see a possible voter increase and the arrival of more progressive politicians as we're seeing happen now, and that Bernie could use his station/pulpit to push awareness for the necessity of voting in the election, and keep the base going.
Where's this arrival of more progressive politicians? I was talking in a farther future tense with the move of the Window. Not immediate direct inspirations. For starters a whole lotta Boomers have to die lol.
Again what you're saying here is based on a social democrat silent majority. Who and where are these people? I don't believe in them.And I see what you're saying about foreign policy, that's clearly Bernie's weakest point in debate in terms of articulating his points/overall knowledge (even though I agree with his foreign policy vision/philosophy more than Clintons) which is to be expected because that was her job, but because I agree with Bernie overall on what should be done, Hilary's experience doesn't sway me much when it'll probably lead to decisions I won't like.
I haven't found that many huge differences in their FP platforms thus far aside from Hillary being unessecarily aggressive about Iran recently when we need Obama ice-man tactics there. Also there's the uh Jewish factor I'm still curious about when it comes to dealing with Israel (as a pro for Bernie).
And as a black man, I see the reason why Bernie has support problems among black Americans, as a reflection of Clinton having built up name recognition, establishment inroads with black groups, ignorance in the same vein as white voters, wary of him because he's an old white man, and push back from Bernie supporters who said "but he marched with Malcom" and he's "the best candidate for you" and criticized BLM, which leads to them grossly stereotyping the base and transmitting their feelings to Bernie.
But at the same time he hasn't seemed so able to reach out to the black population directly. Or really any minority group. Whatever our individual thoughts we do gotta recognize demographics as mattering and the ability to mobilize into them mattering. Bernie needs to do that. I mean especially if you believe in him you should agree with that need.
I do see Bernie totally being able to slay Trump, especially with the passion he brings to the race to fight against him, and he seems to be quick with retorts from what i've seen, and watching old debates with him, and seeing how firey he get's when fighting for what he believes in, I believe he can cut through Trump as well as Hilary.
I don't think being earnest will work on Trump though. Being passionate and earnest isn't bad, but against Trump who doesn't play by the rules? Is it that effective?
And lastly I agree that Hilary is competent, and she could very well be a fine president, she's just not the president I want (though if it comes to it I will vote for her).
tbh I think I still might vote for Bernie in the primary regardless. As I still think a demonstration of popularity for him has it's role in shifting the window, and is part of the leftward pressure to put on Hillary.
I also frankly think in the same vein that not altogether satisfied people voting for Hillary is a healthy part of that. That she will receive leftward pressure from the audience Bernie created after hopefully winning the general. In this way Bernie accomplishes potentially a lot.–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I'd vote for Bernie to even see him taking a crack at pushing for his extremes. What's with all the resignation? Extremes haven't been on the executive menu within my lifetime or beyond. How are we so sure of what they taste like? I'm sick of hearing about realism and compromise when we haven't even had a chance to try an alternative.
Are you talking with enthusiasm about extremes in general? Or you mean specifically left-economics aka Bernie?
The latter yeah I understand, the former however is a very bad way to start thinking.Either way you seem to be misunderstanding my argument. It's not at all skepticism of progressive economic policies. In fact it's kind of the opposite of that.
I'm talking strategically how the nation could be advanced in that direction. Which no I don't think is as simple as electing a progressive president. I mean the thing in your first paragraph about suddenly excited people and even potentially the notion that you just want alternatives for the sake of alternative is honestly half the issue. That's not actually a basis of lots of progressive support so much as vaguely left leaning people making protest votes. Which is an extremely brittle ground to put Bernie through on and hope he'll be able to make anything stick. And such voters are notoriously big on skipping midterms and not really caring about congressional stuff moreover.What I really want to see is this boil down to Trump vs. Sanders because they represent popular candidates that are well outside their party's establishment. There's a lot of divisions created by this that really give us a chance to split the middle and see where their loyalties are.
That won't really split the middle, it will just make the middle come to compromise against their tastes. Just like Bernie supporters for voting for Hillary.
Also there's not a single thing positive at this stage of Trump's division creating now that it's clearly very popular.Which democrats will be flushed out as right-wingers when they tacitly support Trump by neglecting Sanders' campaign?
The possibility of enough middle people being more icked by Sanders and tilting things to Trump…accomplishes what exactly? I'm not clear here.
Will the right finally be forced to split from anti-intellectual and racist rhetoric when they see the fervor Trump's summoned is too far for them, or will they forever mark themselves with the decision to join it?
This is way more likely to happened with a moderate Democrat than Bernie. Of course most will vote for Trump though. What do you expect?
This would be the best condition for revolution this nation's seen for a long time.
Uh what?
-
Just wondering, do the Amish vote in elections or follow politics at all?
-
Pfft.
-
@Medical:
Just wondering, do the Amish vote in elections or follow politics at all?
They are American citizens so there's nothing legally keeping them from voting, but to my knowledge something like only 5% of them actually bother to.
-
[qimg]https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/iukrnly04z185mtxpoek.gif[/qimg]
Pfft.
It must suck when Jeb Bush of all people is blowing you off.
-
What a tragic collection of clowns when Bush is the one with the most likability and integrity.
-
I think Bernie and Hilary are only similar when you compare them to the Right. You're getting two very different things when you compare them to each other. You can't think Hilary is just as good and will basically do the same things because she won't. They don't have the same goals. They don't have the same intentions. Even a supreme court nominee would be vastly different between the two of them.
Hilary voted for the TPP. She changed her mind after it became unpopular but Obama is still pushing it and Hilary is very much in the same vein as him. His intentions should be a good idea of where the party leaders want to go. They might go back to the drawing board. They might change the name. They might still try to push it through congress as is but it should not be forgotten of where she initially stood on it. Odds are if she becomes the incumbent she will win again, especially with the republican party in the state it's in. So if she gets to where she wants with no real incentive to change or anyone to challenge her things like the TPP renamed and readjusted will more than likely be back on the table. Bernie was against it. He was against the way it was trying to be fast tracked. I doubt he would sign any version of it into law.
Her top 5 biggest contributors are banks and financial institutions. Her husband supported and signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall which was pretty picked over by then but removing it entirely was definitely an act of deregulation. We know where she stands when it comes to banks which is where she has always stood. There is nothing genuine in a statement from Hilary Clinton about reigning in big banks and wall street. The idea that she would turn on the people who have been supporting her her entire career makes no sense. Now the criticism is that Bernie's plan is too ambitious and he'd never get it through congress and maybe that's true but he could spend 4-8 years trying. At the very least he might be able to prosecute some people or hold them accountable for the damage they did.
Hilary's other big contributor is drug companies from which she's received more money than any other candidate. These companies would benefit greatly from the TPP btw. That aside if you're being paid by the drug companies and the insurance companies how can you promise health care reform. She's already said that Bernie's plan is too big and it is big. Again I would rather see him try and fail than no one try at all because we voted someone who never really had any intention of reforming the system into office. You could argue that this is more on congress anyway but Obama lead the charge to reform healthcare and even though they had congress and they did nothing with it they still managed to pass a watered down version of what they intended. At they very least someone needs to lead a charge and I don't think Hilary will do that in any meaningful way.
Hilary wants tech companies to provide backdoors into the products they give to the public. She also thinks encryption is a "problem" and wants to solve it by creating a project that would allow the government to break through any encryption. This just shows more of a lack of understanding of the technology than anything but again, it gives a clear idea of direction she's heading. She says this would be used just to fight terrorism but thanks to the PATRIOT Act which she voted for, twice, domestic terrorism is a broad definition that only requires the appearance of the things that define it, not even proof. This I think is the worst thing about her. She will be type of president who will continue to punish whistleblowers be they government workers or just journalist. She will be the type of president who will expand the network the US has already built for domestic spying. She will keep pushing this agenda that Obama has been quietly pushing without much opposition that really undermines everything this country claims to stand for. I don't think that's hyperbole either but I am a bit paranoid. Technology will advance in so many ways in the next 8 years. I don't want that advancement to take place under the watch of a president who thinks the government has a right to private information.
There's a lot of little things I don't like about her. Like her supposed claim on the black community even though she only stopped taking donations from private prisons in Oct 2015. Her opposition to decriminalizing marijuana even though the war on drugs has mostly just been used to gut black communities and justify crap like stop and frisk which also affects black people. That could be appealing to moderates or it could be trying to appease her pharmaceutical base, either one pisses me off. Her flip flopping on LGBT issues until when it was convenient for her. You can call it being a politician. I call it being a shitty person when you can support things like DOMA and DADT that dehumanize a group of people because it's politically the in thing for you to do. I'm not voting for that even with a Trump pointed at my head.
To me it seems like she will say anything and do anything and take money from anyone to get into that office and once she is in I don't know what people expect her to do because everything she's said is so clearly a lie. You can't say that at least she'll take a stab at healthcare because they're literally paying her not to. You can't say she'll take a stab at the banks because they're also paying her not to. You can't say she'll take a stab at income inequality because she's being paid by wall street not to. A vote for Clinton in the primary is basically saying "I just don't want the Republican's to win" because you can't say anymore about her than that. Name something and you can bet she's flipped on it. Probably recently. She's less of a fighter, more of a survivor.
-
So what you're saying is, if Hillary gets the nom, you're willing to sit it out and let Trump win.
Got it.
-
The voting equivalent of taking your ball(ot) and going home because the game is not going the way you want it to.
-
So what you're saying is, if Hillary gets the nom, you're willing to sit it out and let Trump win.
Got it.
You want to discuss why any of that is wrong or are you still going to dodge with that terrible argument about not voting that I already proved, was in my case, garbage?
-
If you don't want to vote then that's fine but, regardless of who becomes president, you should have nothing to say about anything that happens. I'll vote for Sanders over Hillary, but if Hillary beats him then so be it. Why does it really matter if Hillary backtracked on certain things? If her new stances on those things are better than her previous ones then who cares?Isn't that a positive thing? A trump presidency would have way more negative effects on me personally & the country in general. If you want to throw a tantrum about Sanders, go ahead. At the end of the day, you're just being hopeful about the way his presidency would go. You have no proof that he wouldn't just be the next Obama, all talk & no action.
-
Yes, because the alternative is worse. And who is up next, Democrat or Republican, matters. Yes, it may not be the best choice that you most want, but it's still the better choice, by a wide margin. Next guy in line is probably going to appoint a supreme court justice or two… and the current group in there has been having an effect for thirty years, on matters like abortion and gay marriage and the 2000 election and internet freedoms. It matters.
If you don't vote, you don't get any right to complain, or object to the candidates, regardless of if your state is split heavily in one direction or another. It's exactly that attitude, when combined with TWO THIRDS OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS, that keeps shit from changing. Texas should have started leaning purple during the midterms, and it didn't, because the voters that we know are there, didn't bother to show up because "there's no point in Texas." We could have had Wendy Davis as state governor and instead we got... Greg Abbott. In what should have been at least a race, turned into a landslide because no one bothered.
And even when its not at the presidential level, your vote can still effect local politics, house and senate races, and whatever else is on your ballot, certain tax hikes or school fundings or whatnot, its rare that the presidential ballot has just one thing on it.
If you are that staunchely convinced you are not going to vote, you should just get out of the thread now and stop discussing it, because your opinion no longer matters in any way at all.
You can have an opinion on movies and that's personal choice. But you can't have an opinion on politics without being active in the process for five minutes once every four years.
-
I think Bernie and Hilary are only similar when you compare them to the Right.
…... Which is EXACTLY the side she'll be fighting against if she gets the nom......
That is LITERALLY what we are doing. We are comparing both candidates to the right. That's what our option is going to be. The Democrat Candidate versus the Republican one.
No matter what you say, no matter what you try to do or prove as to why Hillary is inferior to Bernie, it doesn't change that.
NONE of us are talking about WANTING Bernie to LOSE the primary. I think everyone here who wants to vote Democrat will vote for Bernie if he gets the nom. What we are ALL saying is that, if he DOES NOT get it and it our choices end up "Hilary" Vs. "Any Republican" then, if you supported Bernie's positions on anything, then having Hilary in office AT THAT POINT is better than having a Republican.
I mean seriously. Do you think losing the nomination is going to make Bernie stop fighting for the things he wants? No, the man actually DOES have conviction. He'll keep fighting against income inequality, he'll keep standing up for LGBT rights, he'll keep fighting for Universal Healthcare, and free public college.
How successful do you think he'll be with a Republican in the white house, AKA a Republican with VETO power?!?!
You may argue that Hilary might Veto some of that too, but I GUARANTEE YOU that more of what Bernie wants has a better chance of getting signed by the president if that President is Hilary than if they're Cruz, or Trump.What this means actually is that, in effect, if Hilary gets the Nom, you'll be hurting Bernie MORE to let the Rebpublican win than you would be by just sucking it up and voting for the lesser of two evils.
But no. If you don't get what you want, you'd rather burn the country to the ground and doom us to a situation where NOTHING Bernie wants even has the SLIGHTEST CHANCE of happening thanks to a presidential veto all to throw a tantrum and make a "Statement" that nobody will get and will just be shrugged off as "Welp, guess the TYPICAL low turnout rate for Democrat voters strikes again!"