QuoteObviously, Clinton carries with her more than 25 years in the white-hot public spotlight that Sanders doesn't -- despite his career in the Senate -- and over that length of time people have been able to form opinions of her and they're ones not likely to change at this point. What you know about Hillary is what you know about Hillary. There aren't a lot of surprises. Maybe you figure this is bad for her, but in truth it can be argued that this is a positive rather than a negative because there's nothing the Republicans can throw at her that we haven't already been fed to death. And when you take a step back and look at Clinton objectively -- which is admittedly difficult for many, even, or maybe particularly, on the left -- that's exactly the point. Hillary Clinton's reputation is largely the result of a quarter century of visceral GOP hatred.
Bernie Sanders will never be president. Let's just get that out of the way right now. He stands very little chance of pulling down the Democratic nomination and no chance at all of winning a general election. His rabid acolytes can argue with this all they want but they'll be wrong for several inarguable reasons: because the "political revolution" Bernie Sanders needs to advance his campaign and agenda is pie-in-the-sky thinking that simply doesn't occur in representative democracies like ours, where change always comes incrementally and our entire system is designed so it can't be remade in one fell swoop; because he's a one-note candidate who concerns himself with nothing other than his admittedly noble lifelong obsession with wealth inequality; because America isn't evolved enough to elect an avowed socialist, democratic or otherwise, and it unfortunately won't get near someone who openly eschews religion; and maybe most importantly because once the GOP considered Bernie a sworn enemy rather than the perfect foil it can use to destroy Hillary Clinton, it would eat him alive. Eat. Him. Alive.
There's one more reason Bernie won't succeed -- a very big one -- and it has to do with something I just mentioned. The fact is, he's up against a very formidable candidate for the nomination in Hillary Clinton. Now maybe you doubt this is an insurmountable obstacle because you've seen a flurry of reports over the past couple of weeks of Clinton struggling while Bernie is surging. And you almost certainly have friends clogging up your Facebook feed with impassioned screeds about how Clinton just can't be trusted, how she's an establishment shill with too little integrity and too much scandal and baggage attached to her, how she might even be the embodiment of pure political evil. Obviously, Clinton carries with her more than 25 years in the white-hot public spotlight that Sanders doesn't -- despite his career in the Senate -- and over that length of time people have been able to form opinions of her and they're ones not likely to change at this point. What you know about Hillary is what you know about Hillary. There aren't a lot of surprises. Maybe you figure this is bad for her, but in truth it can be argued that this is a positive rather than a negative because there's nothing the Republicans can throw at her that we haven't already been fed to death.
And when you take a step back and look at Clinton objectively -- which is admittedly difficult for many, even, or maybe particularly, on the left -- that's exactly the point. Hillary Clinton's reputation is largely the result of a quarter century of visceral GOP hatred.
With the exception of maybe Barack Obama, whom they've irrationally loathed with the fire of a thousands suns, it's tough to name anyone conservatives have more vigorously derided throughout the years than Hillary Clinton. Even her husband, as much as they tried to take him down at every turn, earned a begrudging respect from many in the Republican party. Beating him up for, say, his sexual proclivities was the height of Beltway hypocrisy and they knew it, but politics demanded they grab onto any potential scandal they could with both hands and ride it as far as it would take them. While it's true many were bitterly jealous of Clinton's seemingly depthless charisma and sorcerer's way with voters, for the GOP leadership at the time it wasn't personal -- just really dirty business. Hillary on the other hand has always been cast as an arrogant bitch, a soulless bête noire, an irredeemably corrupt and fundamentally dishonest political hustler. From the very beginning of her time in the national political limelight, she was vilified for refusing to simply sit back and be an ornament on the White House Christmas tree, as she was apparently supposed to. And when she ventured out into her own separate political career, what was considered calculating but somehow forgivable from her husband became merely calculating -- and nefariously so -- from her. Bill was allowed to be Slick Willy. Hillary was just a rotten to the core.
The Clintons' political enemies were never shy about manufacturing every kind of conspiratorial scandal under the sun to attempt to hang around the couple's necks. As The Atlantic wrote just a few days ago, no other political figures in American history have spawned "the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them." (And this is noteworthy in and of itself when we consider the viciousness with which the right despises any Clinton.) But Hillary always got the worst of it, because, again, she lacked the boyish, "aw-shucks" charm of her husband and because she was seen as the nakedly ambitious one in the Clintons' rocket ride to political stardom, someone who engineered her own political climb through her merely practical marriage to Bill. Whereas we normally think of presidential political scandals as involving the person in office and no one else, Clinton-haters made sure that Hillary was not only lumped in with the president but that she was part of whatever "scheme" they had seized upon and inflated -- so Whitewater and Bill's wandering eye during those early years weren't simply a crisis of character within Bill himself but were also Hillary's problem. They made sure to highlight her involvement in the land deal the GOP attempted to turn into a high crime within the White House and it was her fault her husband was a serial philanderer, as she either caused her husband's infidelity or was corrupt enough to stick by her man amidst the allegations (always cynically and only for the sake of her own political gain).
The list goes on and on: Vince Foster was Hillary Clinton's personal friend, so of course the truth about his suicide in 1993 has given way to myth and conspiracy theory from those who believe Hillary was somehow involved in the death. The more unscrupulous on the right have always peddled that nonsense as proof Hillary has a "body count" attached to her (of which Foster was only one). There was the haranguing over Hillary's "missing law firm records," which was a lot of nothing piled on top of even more nothing. There was "Travelgate," in which routine staff changes in the White House were transformed into accusations of cronyism and in which Hillary was lambasted by Republicans for allegedly using the FBI and IRS to harass the former head of the White House travel office. (Comparable to the modern right's obsession with a phony story about "Obama's IRS" auditing conservative groups.) There was "Filegate," which saw Republicans pillory the Clintons, Hillary in particular, over a minor bureaucratic mix-up in which a Hillary hire at the Office of White House Counsel accessed files he didn't have the authority to. And of course, at the tail end of their time in the White House, Hillary was accused of helping to "loot" the White House on her way out, supposedly shipping materials to the Clintons' new home in Upstate New York.
All of this was investigated and all of it was found to be crap. But Hillary Clinton's ongoing political career only gave her GOP adversaries more alleged controversies to gin-up. She engaged in dirty dealings and then covered them up. She sold secrets to China. Her long-time adviser Huma Abedin was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and her parents had ties to al-Qaeda. She was involved in the Watergate scandal, for Christ's sake, and had ties to right-wing boogeyman Saul Alinsky. And of course, she personally got four Americans killed in Benghazi and endangered the safety and security of the United States by way of her personal server and e-mail account. She's a lying liar and a cheating cheat. She's a political Cthulu who drives men to madness by sheer force of her inhuman will and absolute malevolence. This is the caricature version of Hillary Clinton the right has carefully cultivated and hammered into the national consciousness for decades now. And if you're a liberal who believes these things about Clinton -- if you see her as anything other than a liberal Democrat who's guilty of nothing more than being a politician with faults and with a plethora of enemies like every other on this planet, including Bernie Sanders -- you've proven that the protracted smear campaign against this woman has worked. You prove that the GOP won a long time ago.
There are reasons you may choose not to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but one would hope they're policy issues rather than problems with her personality -- because the "personality" that's been sold to the American electorate is largely manufactured, and not by Clinton herself (another facet of the smear: that she's a phony). The reality is that Clinton was one of the most liberal members of the Senate during her time there, ranking within ten points of progressive messiah Bernie Sanders and her history as a crusader for progressive causes is precisely what so motivated the GOP to destroy her in the first place. As far as the right was concerned, Clinton stepped far over the line when she pushed for healthcare reform way back in 1993 and her activist past informed a future as a "difficult woman." By the way, it hardly needs to be said but many of the conservative attacks on Clinton throughout the decades have been the product of rank sexism. Men rarely get labeled difficult or abrasive and their general likability isn't often called into question. Those are all buzzwords employed specifically to knock empowered women down a peg. And Hillary Clinton has been subjected to them -- and so much worse -- her entire political career.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders share a lot of the same basic policy prescriptions. The difference is one of method. Sanders makes sweeping pronouncements and talks of a revolution that will be so undeniable that it will upend the American political system as it's been for decades and silence all who oppose. Clinton, on the other hand, promises that she'll continue to fight tirelessly for liberal causes and concedes that at times that fight won't yield perfection but it will yield results that benefit people's lives. She promises to build on the legacy of one of the most effective liberal presidents this country has ever seen. Sanders says it all needs to be torn down and started from scratch because too many compromises have already been made. Sanders wants to fundamentally change American hearts and minds. Clinton wants to formulate a plan of action that gets things done. Sanders sells idealism. Clinton sells pragmatism. And the problem is that pragmatism isn't a sexy sell, even though it's an essential quality in an effective leader.
The thing is, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are good people, though -- and that's what some seem to be forgetting. Hillary is no more an establishment shill than any other American politician, if by establishment you mean that she works within the U.S. government and is therefore subject to its bottom line. Even Sanders, for all his beatified status on the left, has to adhere to political reality if he wants to get anything at all accomplished. He can't simply wave a magic wand and get what he wants, not even if he has the political capital provided by the support of a large part of the electorate. What Hillary Clinton isn't is this grotesque self-parody that a quarter-century of Republican "vetting" has reduced her to for far too many. An overwhelming number of the so-called controversies that have dogged Clinton's career are either whole-cloth creations or convenient manipulations by the GOP.
You can say you don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton because she's scandal-prone and who wants to go through another four or eight years of that. But remember two things: One, no matter what Democratic candidate gets elected, he or she will face a daily trial by fire from irrationally outraged conservatives. Seven years of Barack Obama-fueled insanity proves that. Two, the supposed scandals that Clinton's been enduring for the past 25 years are mostly nonsense. The GOP wouldn't have it any other way. And they couldn't be happier that right now so many liberals have turned against the woman they utterly despise in favor of someone they're fully aware they can beat. Because they understand she's the only thing standing in their way in 2016. They can't beat her. And they know it.
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/
Yup. I've watched her for 25 years, and I know that pretty much all of the accusations being made against her are Republican-manufactured BS, just like almost every scandal leveled at her husband and at Obama during their presidencies. The Repubes have been whining about her ever since she made a statement about Tammy Wynette in 1991, and before.
Hillary is indeed liberal, as well as a strong, independent woman, which is why the Republicans detest her so much. Sadly, many of my fellow Bernie supporters are falling for the same Republican-manufactured rhetoric.
I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but he has lost and thus I am supporting Hillary because the only alternative is Trump.
Quote from: Atheon on June 09, 2016, 04:17:31 AM
Yup. I've watched her for 25 years, and I know that pretty much all of the accusations being made against her are Republican-manufactured BS, just like almost every scandal leveled at her husband and at Obama during their presidencies. The Repubes have been whining about her ever since she made a statement about Tammy Wynette in 1991, and before.
Hillary is indeed liberal, as well as a strong, independent woman, which is why the Republicans detest her so much. Sadly, many of my fellow Bernie supporters are falling for the same Republican-manufactured rhetoric.
I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but he has lost and thus I am supporting Hillary because the only alternative is Trump.
As a pragmatist, I've supported Hillary all along - but I'm still afraid that Trump is likely to win. Hillary has not only her own so-called "scandals" to run against, she has the Obama legacy to run against. President Obama has done a good job - but he is not going out of office w/the kind of approval ratings that would get his party swept back into office. And now there's another scandal about his place of birth in the news. Apparently, someone has dug up old college IDs showing him registered at Columbia University as a foreign exchange student.Also, is his name Barak - or is it Bruce? It might all be nonsense, but the story will not die.
I think the mentioned group of American people have a problem with the basic part rather than Hillary Clinton's personality traits or her personal opinions:
QuoteHillary is no more an establishment shill than any other American politician, if by establishment you mean that she works within the U.S. government and is therefore subject to its bottom line.
It's really doesn't matter if you are an independent or a strong person if you are sitting on that chair, you are bounded by what was put before you and carry that away; enforce what takes hold. Presidents do not make independent decisions by themselves or pull something extraordinary just because they are a strong person. People have a problem with the general structure and the current working of the government, common players in the field.
If there is really a so called group of 'liberals' that is going to decide about a democrat candidate according to Republican propaganda that is problematic in itself. Which probably is not as simple as that of course.
I have seen liberals come and go ... and they are just like conservatives. Bernie had a chance ... but he couldn't swallow enough live goldfish to keep the voters attention. If he were elected, I expect he would be as rotten as the rest of them. They don't represent or work for the common good and I am not interested in wasting my time on working against the common good, by supporting them.
Those who blindly hate or blindly adore some candidate (because you don't know these people personally) demonstrate animal passions I am wary toward in my own life. The attempt to kiss babies and swallow live goldfish ... in order to get the public's attention ... by candidates, has long lost its entertainment value. Looks like I will be tuning out and sitting this one out, since I don't think my state will support third party or write in candidates ... just as they did not in 2012. If they did, I might write in Bernie, mostly for irony.
If Hillary gets elected, just as when Barak got elected ... there will be much wearing and gnashing of teeth, even by the people who voted for them, by the time they are thru trashing the US and the rest of the world. Though this post is out of order, since I am not liberal. Trump is a mystery to me, but I can't see myself voting for him ... he didn't have much chance of getting my vote in the first place.
Shoe ... I do appreciate your attempts to understand the US and get past all the BS.
I doubt that many liberals accept 25 years of manufactured Republican publicity. At best they just recognize that the publicity exists and takes a toll. The only reason to reject Hillary based on manufactured publicity is that strategically, the publicity creates a problem for her electability. Strategically, this is a real problem, not a problem with the party loyalty of "turncoat liberals" (that is a separate problem). In fact, it could be argued that "party loyalty" itself is a problem, because it helps perpetuate the status quo.
This year candidates negative ratings have reached an all time high. Repeat that, "An all time high!" People hate the candidates. They hate Trump and they hate Hillary. And these negative ratings cross the lines of party loyalty too. Of course, more Republicans hate Hillary and more Democrats hate Trump, but all the negatives that make up American perceptions, true or false, are in place. The end result is that our choices must be taken from an assortment contained in our political shitbox.
The Democrats will vote for Hillary, except the ones that don't, and the Republicans will vote for Trump, except the ones that don't. And the independents..., Ah those independents! Those independents who decide the actual fate of the country, the only voters who claim to put any real thought into their choices will labor over the choices as they thoughtfully decide what shit in the shitbox makes the most rational sense in leading the country out of the depths of despair. And they will defend their choices in such a way that you can't argue with them (after all they believe they are the only voters who actually have thought about anything).
But is the country actually in despair? Yes, it is. I know this because during every election, the country is in despair and facing a national crisis the likes of which call for party loyalty more than ever before. Just listen to the rhetoric. It must be true. And it probably is true, although not for the reasons given by those vying for office. Hell, the people vying for office are the representatives of the crisis. They are competing with each other to ultimately control the shitbox, and thereby reap the personal rewards the shitbox provides to those who nurture it.
God, I want to scream. This year, instead of going to the polls, I'm considering just taking 5 minutes to grab two hand's full of hair on my head, pull with all my strength, and let out a loud bellow that will surely frighten my neighbors as they patriotically tromp home from the polling place in a fog of national pride and personal satisfaction.
I maintain what I said months ago
Everybody sucks 2016
The us is doomed
Guess I'm not a liberal.
Quote from: SGOS on June 09, 2016, 07:31:28 AM
God, I want to scream.
Don't fear. Hillary will win. Some good things will happen behind closed doors like with Obama. In the short time I knew of Obama, I've seen him say one thing and do another. During his first campaign, he let business owners know he was a stiff. At the end of his last term, he released 6000 prisoners. It looks like there should be more, but it's a start. Even though I'm progressive, I don't enjoy it when a progressive candidate plays both sides for positioning. Trump does that.
Bernie looks like he's hanging in just to make our voices louder
"Bernie Sanders is selling unworkable, pie-in-the-sky idealism" - no wonder the dems have been getting a reputation of late for being status quo. The second you offer substantial reform, this is what you're saddled with. Between that and a party that wants to take the nation back to the 50s, it's no wonder we have mounting unresolved problems.
And Clinton (currently under federal investigation) is apparently totally blameless in her scandals - they're all just baseless republican smears. I wonder how many people actually believe that. I feel bad for them.
"The reality is that Clinton was one of the most liberal members of the Senate during her time there, ranking within ten points of progressive messiah Bernie Sanders and her history as a crusader for progressive causes is precisely what so motivated the GOP to destroy her in the first place." Even if we accept this as true, she's still a 6.8 compared to Bernie's 9 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/findthebest-/every-2016-candidate-from_b_7562176.html). Why vote for someone who more distantly shares your political stances?
The Clinton camp is going to have to put out much more convincing propaganda if they expect to win this election.
Here's one lie she can't deny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozQe72pJOdQ
Pandermonium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
Quote from: gentle_dissident on June 09, 2016, 11:26:33 AMHere's one lie she can't deny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozQe72pJOdQ
That one was posted earlier (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=9552.0). As you can see, it went more or less unnoticed. Apparently, Trump's not the only one with supporters deeply in denial about their candidate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uT68riwrFI
Even if Bernie is a 9 and Hillary is a 6.5, it still doesn't change the fact that he fought for the support of a political party that he simultaneously bashed the entire time. He is a very good presidential candidate, I still feel, but he is not a democrat.
Hillary, in contrast to Bernie seems like a steaming pile of shit because he chose to run for the Democratic nomination and fought so closely. So now, because of the "Bernie or bust" people, we might as well start ringing in the bells for Trump's inauguration ceremony now. #trump2016 here we come.
And also. I feel like continuing to bash Hillary makes our chances much higher for Trump to be elected. Remember 6.5 is still above average. And Hillary's 6.5 is much better than Donald's 3.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
QuoteThe thing is, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are good people, though -- and that's what some seem to be forgetting.
LMAO. Hillary is worse than someone who has raped dozens of children. Hillary is worse than any so called terrorist. Hillary is worse than a serial killer. These people only ruin lives. Hillary ruins entire countries. Good person? Wow.
There are positives with Hillary. She has been Sec. of State, a Senator and lived in the White House for 8 years. And I'm pretty sure there was a lot of input by her when Bill was the prez. You also get Bill back in the White House. Worked for the DOD under Bill and retired before Obama was elected, so I've seem Repubs and Dems from the DOD window. Bill did a better job than Bush by far. And everybody forgets that he was the last president to balance the budget.
She gets my vote. And as far as "pants on fire" pretty sure The Donald's pants are pure Asbestos.
I think all politicians are corrupt, untrustworthy, insincere, liars, cheats, cons...the list goes on for a while. There's no such thing as an honest politician. Honest people don't stand a chance at the polls.
That being said, it is well established that Republicans have been throwing shit at this particular wall for some years just HOPING some of it would stick. Much of it ridiculous shit. They've even blamed her for her husband's infidelity. America currently has this weird relationship with Republicans where they do something so obviously underhanded that we all know it's underhanded, but they claim it's for some noble purpose and, for some reason, if we call bullshit we're the bad guys, even when some of them admit the underhanded intent.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 09, 2016, 12:23:51 PMEven if Bernie is a 9 and Hillary is a 6.5, it still doesn't change the fact that he fought for the support of a political party that he simultaneously bashed the entire time.
Not bashed, criticized. And apparently for good reason. The DNC picked their candidate before anyone cast a vote.
QuoteHe is a very good presidential candidate, I still feel, but he is not a democrat.
This precisely sums up the Democratic Party's problem. Good and democrat should be synonymous, but they're not.
QuoteHillary, in contrast to Bernie seems like a steaming pile of shit because he chose to run for the Democratic nomination and fought so closely.
He went from 1% to nearly matching Clinton in the polls. 1828 pledged delegates to 2203. And with neither the big donors nor the DNC behind him. And all this from an avowed socialist to an electorate that disturbingly often confuses democratic socialism with communism or nazism. What does such a close fight say about the strength of Hillary Clinton's campaign?
QuoteSo now, because of the "Bernie or bust" people, we might as well start ringing in the bells for Trump's inauguration ceremony now. #trump2016 here we come.
There's still time. The primaries are just now wrapping up. In fact, trying to court Sanders supporters while the Sanders campaign is still ongoing might've been a tad presumptuous and off-putting.
Instead of attempting to write hagiography for Clinton, instead I just present her platform (http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-on-the-issues-2015-9), which isn't terribly dissimilar from Sanders. When Sanders calls it quits, here's another platform that's almost as good. You'll get way more supporters if you rally behind the platform, not the person. The Clinton camp has been barking up the wrong tree on that one for a long time now, and I hope they change their strategy before it's too late.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 09, 2016, 12:29:35 PM
And also. I feel like continuing to bash Hillary makes our chances much higher for Trump to be elected.
Whose fault is that?
^Hydra said it better than I could. Sanders as the candidate would win- I have 2 died in the wool, Fox watching Republican sisters that would both vote for him. But personally I think he needs to get behind Hillary now. If he were the VP it would bring in a lot of votes and would solidify the party. Elizabeth Warren has the same level of popularity. Her as VP would also be a win.
Quote from: stromboli on June 09, 2016, 12:59:29 PM
But personally I think he needs to get behind Hillary now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1FFVWEQnSM
Quote from: gentle_dissident on June 09, 2016, 10:10:43 AM
Guess I'm not a liberal.
Hillary isn't either. Bernie was ... maybe.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on June 09, 2016, 12:59:23 PM
Whose fault is that?
Yes, if Nader had't run, then Gore would have been Emperor for life! All hail the hanging Chad!
Quote from: stromboli on June 09, 2016, 12:59:29 PM
^Hydra said it better than I could. Sanders as the candidate would win- I have 2 died in the wool, Fox watching Republican sisters that would both vote for him. But personally I think he needs to get behind Hillary now. If he were the VP it would bring in a lot of votes and would solidify the party. Elizabeth Warren has the same level of popularity. Her as VP would also be a win.
If Warren accepts VP under Hillary ... then she has drunk the Kool-aide ... and she is dead to me. Bernie would be interesting, but he won't take it ... and Hillary's backers won't let her make that offer.
Quote from: stromboli on June 09, 2016, 12:59:29 PMBut personally I think he needs to get behind Hillary now. If he were the VP it would bring in a lot of votes and would solidify the party. Elizabeth Warren has the same level of popularity. Her as VP would also be a win.
Yeah. AFAIK, there are no more primaries left other than D.C., and that's not going to change anything. He clearly doesn't have the delegates.
I think the fallout of this election is going to have drastic consequences, regardless of the winner.
Quote from: Baruch on June 09, 2016, 01:15:04 PM
If Warren accepts VP under Hillary ... then she has drunk the Kool-aide ... and she is dead to me. Bernie would be interesting, but he won't take it ... and Hillary's backers won't let her make that offer.
Actually I don't see EW accepting the offer to be VP. She had/has some specific agendas that would be better served in other areas. Dept. of the Interior? Don't know. Anything that gets a handle on Wall Street and the Dept. of Education. She has been an ardent Bernie backer. We shall see.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 09, 2016, 01:39:40 PM
I think the fallout of this election is going to have drastic consequences, regardless of the winner.
Agreed.
Clinton sucks!
Trump sucks!
I said Clinton sucks first!
Well, I said Trump sucks louder!
MOM!!!!!
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result than before is what?
Chumpin' for Trump in '16!
or
Hookers United Horin' for Hillary in '16!
Johnson/Weld in '16!
Sorry! Couldn't help myself! LOL!
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 09, 2016, 12:29:35 PM
And also. I feel like continuing to bash Hillary makes our chances much higher for Trump to be elected.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/androidlove/noblab.jpg)
Bashed/criticized... two different words with essentially the same meaning in this instance... pick whichever word woks for you.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 09, 2016, 12:53:30 PM
There's still time. The primaries are just now wrapping up. In fact, trying to court Sanders supporters while the Sanders campaign is still ongoing might've been a tad presumptuous and off-putting.
I am a Sanders supporter, if I wasn't clear enough already.
I am also an optimist, but more than that, I'm a realist. I hoped he would win the democratic nomination, despite how he is not a democrat. Yes, it's the democrats that have changed in to something else, but the reality of what we are dealing with is, the democratic party we have, is the democratic party we have. We can glorify and reminisce over what the democratic party was, but what it was and what it is now, are two different things. We aren't dealing with a democratic party of the past, we are dealing with the democratic party that is very in-line with what Hillary Clinton is. Voting in a president that is different from what our current democratic party is, isn't going to change that. We still have to deal with the rest of congress. It's not like we can pretend the of congress away. We need to vote them out and vote in the people that matter. Voting in a president that is more in line with better solutions for our economy and environment is great and all, but he only makes up 1/3 of the system. There is 2 other thirds he would be fighting against.
Of course, most people only care about taking a part in our government every 4 years... To vote for 1 part of our 3 part system.
I hate to say it, but it's going to be Trump with the presidential election. I'm calling it right now. Bernie or bust-ers are going to write in his name in the general election, some of them will go to Jill Stein... causing the votes to split. And causing Trump to win. Just like how Bush won to Gore thanks to Nader. And why? because of pride. Because people are too prideful to vote for the lesser of evils, despite the fact that they have a better chance at winning with their party's nomination.
Time to start looking for out-of-country housing. Like I said, it's going to be Trump with the win this time around.
I'm pretty sure we'll wind up voting for Clinton because we'll have no other choice.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on June 09, 2016, 03:17:30 PM
I'm pretty sure we'll wind up voting for Clinton because we'll have no other choice.
Don't count on everyone doing the same... I am voting Clinton, not because I like her, but because I dislike her less than I like Trump.
This election is like getting offered either only canned tuna or only canned sardines for dinner every year prior, but this year we had an option of a nice steak dinner instead... and then the steak was yanked away. Tuna is obviously slightly better than nasty sardines, but who wants another can of tuna when you were just offered a steak? It's a bummer, to say the least, but this election, other than the gone chance of Sanders as a nominee, is not much different from other elections. The issue of Sanders as a possible option is an issue though, because it will split the vote, causing Trump to win.
Some Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary. A lot will... but many will still vote for Sanders. And some will vote for Jill Stein. As much as I hate to think of it, I have to say it again. Trump WILL become president, even though the thought of that makes me want to vomit blood.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 09, 2016, 03:13:08 PMWe aren't dealing with a democratic party of the past, we are dealing with the democratic party that is very in-line with what Hillary Clinton is.
Judging by the primaries, that's not entirely true. The leadership perhaps, but not the rank-and-file. And this disconnect, if unresolved, could really end up costing the dems down the road.
QuoteVoting in a president that is different from what our current democratic party is, isn't going to change that.
I'd love to hear how we change the party without changing its leadership.
QuoteI hate to say it, but it's going to be Trump with the presidential election. I'm calling it right now.
I'd take that bet. I predict a Clinton victory, though it'll be close. She may look bad compared to Bernie, but she looks like a million bucks compared to Trump.
QuoteBernie or bust-ers are going to write in his name in the general election, some of them will go to Jill Stein... causing the votes to split. And causing Trump to win.
If so, this would be the first election I remember where the losing candidate blamed the electorate rather than their own campaign.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 09, 2016, 03:35:26 PMI'd take that bet. I predict a Clinton victory, though it'll be close. She may look bad compared to Bernie, but she looks like a million bucks compared to Trump.
Yeah.. I mean I hope so, but I'm afraid I might not be as optimistic as you seem to be...
Quote
If so, this would be the first election I remember where the losing candidate blamed the electorate rather than their own campaign.
I'm not sure Gore blamed Nader, I don't remember enough of that election, but I do remember a lot of people blaming Nader for continuing to run, despite not having the nomination and splitting the votes on Gore. I still hear people blame Nader for that. I fear something very similar will happen if Sanders continues to run, even as an independent.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/bernie-sanders-washington/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/bernie-sanders-washington/)
Quote"I look forward to meeting with (Clinton) in the near future to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump and to create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1%," Sanders told reporters.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 09, 2016, 03:40:36 PM
I don't remember enough of that election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnT4rr9wdY
Gentle-dissident ...
Yes, group think and jingoism worked so well for Germany ;-( Democrats and Republicans have both been lobotomized.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on June 09, 2016, 03:17:30 PM
I'm pretty sure we'll wind up voting for Clinton because we'll have no other choice.
That is the master plan, by the people who own both candidates. I voted one last time, for the lesser evil, in 2012. Not doing it again. I know someone who got out of the US way back when, went to Sweden. Now he is up to his armpits in ME refugees. There is no escaping sadistic globalism, by definition .. unless you aren Elon Musk and can build a billionaire-only base on Mars.
I don't fear either candidate (assuming things don't change between now and November, like Hillary going to jail or Trump getting shot). I no longer care what happens to the US, even though I still live here. I used to care, but you can't keep on clinging to a failed state.
Well that was a strange article. It seems like the author is attempting to suggest that everything bad that is known about Hillary is really just some republican frame job. I guess in his mind, shes really a flawless angel of virtue.
I won't be voting for Clinton. Yes thats right. Even if the consequences are that Donald Trump wins. (I won't be voting for him either, btw). Why will I not be voting for Clinton? Its simple. I don't like her. Shes a shady character, a social and political chameleon, and frankly she simply wants it way too fucking much. To the point where she is essentially willing to cheat in the primary even while she is ahead. Further, she has had the unconditional, unmitigated support of the media since day 1 which sets off all sorts of blaring alarms in my mind.
I think in an environment free of media interference, on a stage with all of the candidates' history, attributes and positions presented side by side, the American people by and large would not choose her as president or even as the democratic nominee. I feel like her victory is the result of momentum that she was given - for free by the media - right in the start with the constant reporting of delegate numbers including super delegates of which she had 500 more than anyone else. The average American was given a total, and the fact that the superdelegates could change their votes was underplayed in the media to say the least. In short, the media gave her a 500 delegate lead that she didn't really have and she rode it to victory.
I won't cast a vote for the media selected candidate. I won't cast a vote for the corporate sponsorship candidate. I won't cast a vote for the DNC establishment selected candidate. The peoples choice has been grossly subverted in multiple ways in this campaign, whether it be through misinformation or through actual honest to god outright cheating like the DNC rearranging voting districts to shift delegates away from Sanders AFTER THE PRIMARY WAS ALREADY OVER.
She and her supporters reek of dishonesty and they DO NOT DESERVE MY VOTE. If Donald Trump wins then so fucking be it. It just means that Hillary wasn't good enough to make it. Every one of you should be depressed as fuck that these two nimrods are our only choices.
Quote from: Nonsensei on June 09, 2016, 10:52:55 PMWell that was a strange article. It seems like the author is attempting to suggest that everything bad that is known about Hillary is really just some republican frame job. I guess in his mind, shes really a flawless angel of virtue.
Yeah, that's the impression I got, too. Which is weird because we have tons of legitimate reasons to wonder about her character that have nothing to do with the Republicans - the Dem debate 9/11 fiasco, for starters.
QuoteI won't be voting for Clinton. Yes thats right. Even if the consequences are that Donald Trump wins. (I won't be voting for him either, btw).
I'm not thrilled with her either, but Trump would be an absolute disaster. This is a guy with zero political experience, seemingly genuinely believes that global warming is a hoax and that vaccines cause autism, and what little policies he brings to the table have been shown to be some combination of utterly moronic, unworkable, and/or anathema to American values. I'd shake hands with the Devil himself for Trump's campaign to crash and burn. And if that means going with a Dem candidate that I'm not particularly proud of endorsing, then so be it.
QuoteI think in an environment free of media interference, on a stage with all of the candidates' history, attributes and positions presented side by side
Yeah, I'd love that, too. If that were remotely in my power, I'd work to make that happen.
QuoteEvery one of you should be depressed as fuck that these two nimrods are our only choices.
Believe me, I am. It's like Cersei Lannister VS Ramsay Bolton and I'm in House Tyrell. What could go wrong?
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 10, 2016, 12:27:35 AM
What could go wrong?
Well at least they're all, "Not on our soil."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sATC1TNIR2U
Quote from: Nonsensei on June 09, 2016, 10:52:55 PM
Well that was a strange article. It seems like the author is attempting to suggest that everything bad that is known about Hillary is really just some republican frame job. I guess in his mind, shes really a flawless angel of virtue.
I won't be voting for Clinton. Yes thats right. Even if the consequences are that Donald Trump wins. (I won't be voting for him either, btw). Why will I not be voting for Clinton? Its simple. I don't like her. Shes a shady character, a social and political chameleon, and frankly she simply wants it way too fucking much. To the point where she is essentially willing to cheat in the primary even while she is ahead. Further, she has had the unconditional, unmitigated support of the media since day 1 which sets off all sorts of blaring alarms in my mind.
I think in an environment free of media interference, on a stage with all of the candidates' history, attributes and positions presented side by side, the American people by and large would not choose her as president or even as the democratic nominee. I feel like her victory is the result of momentum that she was given - for free by the media - right in the start with the constant reporting of delegate numbers including super delegates of which she had 500 more than anyone else. The average American was given a total, and the fact that the superdelegates could change their votes was underplayed in the media to say the least. In short, the media gave her a 500 delegate lead that she didn't really have and she rode it to victory.
I won't cast a vote for the media selected candidate. I won't cast a vote for the corporate sponsorship candidate. I won't cast a vote for the DNC establishment selected candidate. The peoples choice has been grossly subverted in multiple ways in this campaign, whether it be through misinformation or through actual honest to god outright cheating like the DNC rearranging voting districts to shift delegates away from Sanders AFTER THE PRIMARY WAS ALREADY OVER.
She and her supporters reek of dishonesty and they DO NOT DESERVE MY VOTE. If Donald Trump wins then so fucking be it. It just means that Hillary wasn't good enough to make it. Every one of you should be depressed as fuck that these two nimrods are our only choices.
So you would be ok with Donald Trump getting in to office because your vote didn't count against him? I'm assuming that is what you mean by that... because that is exactly what your lack of voting will help do.
Seems overly prideful to me. :think:
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 10, 2016, 01:51:05 AM
Seems overly prideful to me. :think:
It probably just makes him physically ill.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 09, 2016, 03:13:08 PM
we are dealing with the democratic party that is very in-line with what Hillary Clinton is.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 09, 2016, 03:35:26 PM
Judging by the primaries, that's not entirely true. The leadership perhaps, but not the rank-and-file.
While that is true, it is also true that the party is not in line with her in both directions. A lot is made about Clinton loosing among voters who want the next president to be more liberal that Obama is, she has also been loosing among voters who want the next president to be less liberal than Obama--a fact that appears to have been a driving force behind her loosing West Virginia. I actually suspect that even a significant percentage of those who want a president more liberal that Obama were voting against Hillary rather than for Sanders.
Quote from: Poison Tree on June 10, 2016, 02:51:46 AM
I actually suspect that even a significant percentage of those who want a president more liberal that Obama were voting against Hillary rather than for Sanders.
The possibilities far outweigh the realities.
Quote from: Nonsensei on June 09, 2016, 10:52:55 PM
Well that was a strange article. It seems like the author is attempting to suggest that everything bad that is known about Hillary is really just some republican frame job. I guess in his mind, shes really a flawless angel of virtue.
I won't be voting for Clinton. Yes thats right. Even if the consequences are that Donald Trump wins. (I won't be voting for him either, btw). Why will I not be voting for Clinton? Its simple. I don't like her. Shes a shady character, a social and political chameleon, and frankly she simply wants it way too fucking much. To the point where she is essentially willing to cheat in the primary even while she is ahead. Further, she has had the unconditional, unmitigated support of the media since day 1 which sets off all sorts of blaring alarms in my mind.
I think in an environment free of media interference, on a stage with all of the candidates' history, attributes and positions presented side by side, the American people by and large would not choose her as president or even as the democratic nominee. I feel like her victory is the result of momentum that she was given - for free by the media - right in the start with the constant reporting of delegate numbers including super delegates of which she had 500 more than anyone else. The average American was given a total, and the fact that the superdelegates could change their votes was underplayed in the media to say the least. In short, the media gave her a 500 delegate lead that she didn't really have and she rode it to victory.
I won't cast a vote for the media selected candidate. I won't cast a vote for the corporate sponsorship candidate. I won't cast a vote for the DNC establishment selected candidate. The peoples choice has been grossly subverted in multiple ways in this campaign, whether it be through misinformation or through actual honest to god outright cheating like the DNC rearranging voting districts to shift delegates away from Sanders AFTER THE PRIMARY WAS ALREADY OVER.
She and her supporters reek of dishonesty and they DO NOT DESERVE MY VOTE. If Donald Trump wins then so fucking be it. It just means that Hillary wasn't good enough to make it. Every one of you should be depressed as fuck that these two nimrods are our only choices.
Nixon in a skirt suit. Holding up V fingers and exclaiming "I am not a Republican". Who will be her Spiro T? Will she get a Presidential pardon before even being indicted? I bet Kissinger is advising her, same as he did the original Nixon. I wasn't old enough to vote for Nixon, but I am sure the folks who said "anybody but Hubert Humphrey" were proud of how things turned out ;-(
I doubt trump will win, but unless he is absolutely trounced and loses by near triple digits he'll have set up the framework for the next shithead or groups of shitheads to run on the idea that they can get elected by being as racist and mysoginistic as possible. Even if Trump comes within spitting distance of winning he'll set the precedent of gaining the traction he has by being the biggest shithead in the room. Sadly we're going to be in for even worse candidates than trump because all of the filters of presidential speak has been trashed.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 12, 2016, 12:00:23 AM
Even if Trump comes within spitting distance of winning he'll set the precedent of gaining the traction he has by being the biggest shithead in the room.
How narrow minded the GOP can become is unlimited. It has been marching forward pushed along by the banner of intolerance for years. It keeps becoming stranger, more militant, and more illogical. With or without Trump, I see no reason why such an insane march would not continue. He's just nudging it along a little faster, but the GOP would have gotten there on their own eventually. Until now, the party has been underestimating the public thirst for the wild and unpredictable. I've often wondered if this is part of a normal pattern of a civilization in decline.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 12, 2016, 12:00:23 AM
I doubt trump will win, but unless he is absolutely trounced and loses by near triple digits he'll have set up the framework for the next shithead or groups of shitheads to run on the idea that they can get elected by being as racist and mysoginistic as possible. Even if Trump comes within spitting distance of winning he'll set the precedent of gaining the traction he has by being the biggest shithead in the room. Sadly we're going to be in for even worse candidates than trump because all of the filters of presidential speak has been trashed.
This is how it has been since Eisenhower. Unless people fight to keep the gains (and I mean violence) of the 1960s, y'all are going to go back to the cabin and pick some more cotton.
Quote from: SGOS on June 12, 2016, 06:32:10 AM
How narrow minded the GOP can become is unlimited. It has been marching forward pushed along by the banner of intolerance for years. It keeps becoming stranger, more militant, and more illogical. With or without Trump, I see no reason why such an insane march would not continue. He's just nudging it along a little faster, but the GOP would have gotten there on their own eventually. Until now, the party has been underestimating the public thirst for the wild and unpredictable. I've often wondered if this is part of a normal pattern of a civilization in decline.
History repeats, remember the 1850s in the US? Remember the "Southern Strategy" of Rs picking up disaffected Ds because of the Civil Rights movement? Hillary is to feminism as Obama is to African-American progress ... Uncle Toms all. The people behind Obama are White, the people behind Hillary are male. And all the people can be fooled all the time.
I think the GOP establishment got some sense knocked into them this time around. Even some of their own are openly discussing voting for Hillary because they hate Trump so much and because, frankly, he's just a lousy candidate. ANY experienced sane person would be a better pick and an inexperienced crazy shit like Trump.
Trump is the result of decades spent courting the fringe and playing on the fears of the ignorant and lazy who want to be handed an exciting reality rather than be bothered to fact check a mundane reality. They made the world scarier and scarier to keep the ignorant voting against their own self-interest never realizing that at some point even the ignorant are going to say, "I keep voting Republican and things keep getting WORSE!"
I think gay marriage played a huge role in tipping their voting pool. Here is a physical, tangible thing that got scarier with the world. People they don't like got rights they didn't want those people to have. I HOPE, but hold out no real belief, that the "nine unelected judges" rhetoric played a role as well. This is the system set up by the founding fathers. Those nine unelected judges are as American as it gets, the actual intent the founding fathers had for the country. But I think your average Republican is either too stupid to grasp that or too smart to allow himself to think about such things lest his religion fall apart.
And, hopefully, people got a taste of what it's like to have too many Republicans in Congress to see the crazy shit they're trying to pull constantly. About the only time they can all come together to work toward a common goal is when there's a dead horse which needs beating, such as abortion, gay marriage or "religious liberty". They can't even agree among themselves to do something "conservative" because there's a growing minority which insists in ideological purity and zero compromise. This, of course, means that they almost never get what they want because that's simply not how government works. That, in turn, pisses them off at the establishment and makes them double down on not compromising, creating a vicious circle-jerk of useless assholes in Congress.
But all of this shit is the GOPs own making. They've had to pander to those ever closer to the fringe for decades to remain relevant in the modern world when so many of their ideas are from the '60s or before and I don't think they've had a collective "new" idea since the failed "Reaganomics", and I doubt even that was actually new, just rebranded with a catchy name, something they are still doing today to push it, still pretending it's a glorious idea even as it's bankrupting governments. The problem, after all, is the Democrats in office who are stopping it from working! Or the economy. That damned Obama economy kept it from working!
I still hold out hope they'll change their fucking diapers, grow the hell up and become a respectable party again like they were in the days of Reagan, when Republicans shared all of these crazy-ass conspiracy theories in private instead of openly accusing Democrats of masterminding things like Benghazi. Hopefully this latest black eye will be enough to wake them up, dump the crazies and start the long road back to relevance through sane, intelligent discussion and fair compromise. It certainly wouldn't hurt if Rupert Murdoch were to die. Faux "News" is one of the biggest problems with the GOP today, spreading fear and misinformation constantly.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 09, 2016, 04:57:47 AM
As a pragmatist, I've supported Hillary all along - but I'm still afraid that Trump is likely to win. Hillary has not only her own so-called "scandals" to run against, she has the Obama legacy to run against. President Obama has done a good job - but he is not going out of office w/the kind of approval ratings that would get his party swept back into office. And now there's another scandal about his place of birth in the news. Apparently, someone has dug up old college IDs showing him registered at Columbia University as a foreign exchange student.Also, is his name Barak - or is it Bruce? It might all be nonsense, but the story will not die.
Actually, President Obama's approval ratings are above 50% and are trending upward. Not the sort of thing to run away from. And I don't think the "He wasn't born in America!!1!" thing has any legs anymore.
Quote from: trdsf on June 14, 2016, 09:58:14 PM
Actually, President Obama's approval ratings are above 50% and are trending upward. Not the sort of thing to run away from. And I don't think the "He wasn't born in America!!1!" thing has any legs anymore.
That's good news.
Quote from: marom1963 on June 14, 2016, 10:05:19 PM
That's good news.
I think a lot of independents and moderate Republicans are looking at Trump and saying "
Fuck no." My Repub friends are all talking about not voting for the first time in their adult lives.
And I think the deeper we get into the campaign, the more Bernie-boys are going to say the same (although according to the latest poll, more Bernie supporters are willing to vote Hillary than Hillary supporters were willing to vote Obama, at the same point in the '08 campaign).
I'm not complacent about this year, but I'm not particularly worried. Things have to change a
lot for Trump to be an electoral threat. He's pissed off women, blacks, and Latinos -- that right there very nearly seals his fate.
Quote from: trdsf on June 14, 2016, 10:54:13 PM(although according to the latest poll, more Bernie supporters are willing to vote Hillary than Hillary supporters were willing to vote Obama, at the same point in the '08)
That would certainly belie the awfully popular idea that Bernie supporters are handing the election to Trump.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 14, 2016, 11:48:11 PM
That would certainly belie the awfully popular idea that Bernie supporters are handing the election to Trump.
I'll find the polling; I saw it within the last couple days.
The thing is, the "Bernie supporters are handing the election to Trump" is a media idea -- the media wants a tight race because that means viewers, which means advertising dollars. The truth -- that Trump is a crooked bigot and that there aren't such dire divisions within the Democratic party -- doesn't induce people to sit down and watch.
Quote from: trdsf on June 15, 2016, 07:22:30 AM
I'll find the polling; I saw it within the last couple days.
The thing is, the "Bernie supporters are handing the election to Trump" is a media idea -- the media wants a tight race because that means viewers, which means advertising dollars. The truth -- that Trump is a crooked bigot and that there aren't such dire divisions within the Democratic party -- doesn't induce people to sit down and watch.
This. American Presidential elections are the greatest show on Earth ... with nukes. That is why Trump isn't disqualified, he's a ringmaster. Clinton is like the thieving cashier that is taking money from the Carnival till.
People say a lot of things they don't mean until push comes to shove. But I don't think many Republicans moved to Canada when Obama was elected, and I don't think many Democrats moved there when Bush was elected. Same for voting. If you are campaigning for Sanders, saying you will vote for Hillary doesn't make you sound all that committed to Sanders.
Some voters may not vote at all if Sanders is not in the race, but from what I understand, many of these are engaging in politics for the first time, so if Sanders had never shown up, they probably wouldn't have been there in the first place. I'll bet that on voting day, the vast majority of those saying no to Trump, will be early to the polls to vote for Trump. Same for the anti Hillary people.
I just don't believe most of this pre nomination campaign rhetoric. I think it's just people spinning their own positions to gain an advantage. But if I'm wrong, and these are not just idle threats, then each political party might want to become more responsive to their constituency. They can't expect to keep doing anything they want just because voters have no one else to vote for. People are going to eventually catch on that all politicians want from them is just their vote. When that happens, voting starts to become a misguided sense of public duty, and people will lose interest in the game. I think that is happening today, but not to the extent that people fear it is.
^ I agree. Part of it might be being browbeat to vote for the "inevitable" candidate before the primary battle was even close to being over. That and taking support for granted, assuming that everyone would support the Dem frontrunner just because she's the Dem frontrunner.
Fortunately for everyone, Sanders and Clinton are patching things up (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign.html) and looking to unify before the general election. Neither one want a Trump presidency and their supporters are the same way. All this talk of voting for Trump or third party is mostly just talk born of frustration and disappointment.