Hillary Clinton is Done

[Trakar]

Boogieman implies something that's not real. SCOTUS composition is entirely real, the impacts are real, and long lasting.

Then you better elect someone who will actually put strong progressives on the bench, not those who will stock it with more conservative-lite justices who aren't much different than the ones you lament about. I wouldn't trust Hillary's candidates to be to the left of her corporatist right of center positions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's become a habit on the left, one I've broken. Like I said if that puts the GOP in a complete state of power, they can't blame anyone else when the economy turns to crap and society comes to resemble the banana republics the right seem to so love. Conservative sycophants won't change if progressives keep protecting them from the pain of their decisions.

Have you heard the saying, don't cut off your nose to spite the face?

 

[varwoche]

Then you better elect someone who will actually put strong progressives on the bench, not those who will stock it with more conservative-lite justices who aren't much different than the ones you lament about. I wouldn't trust Hillary's candidates to be to the left of her corporatist right of center positions.

I could line up all sorts of important 5-4 decisions ... if I had the time that is .

By the way, on what issues did she veer right since 2008? I don't see it at all. She seemed every bit the corporate, waffling, poll-driven centrist then as now.

(Mind you, I opposed her in 2008, and I would still oppose her were there a viable alternative.)

 

[Trakar]

Have you heard the saying, don't cut off your nose to spite the face?

Yes, eye-rolling does seem to suit you.

How do you perceive my actions as causing damage to myself more than the object of my anger? (I think a better case of this would be those who select Hillary though they feel that ideologically and principally they agree more with Sanders and his policy positions)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Then you better elect someone who will actually put strong progressives on the bench, not those who will stock it with more conservative-lite justices who aren't much different than the ones you lament about. I wouldn't trust Hillary's candidates to be to the left of her corporatist right of center positions.

Meh... I want someone who's able to incorporate some of the core - best - qualities of conservatism and progressivism into their decision making. In other words a legitimate moderate who can hold both types of positions. I have such a hard time with Bernie Sanders since he's a good example with me of someone who leans too far in one direction... I love his social views, economically though he's selling a dream so far. The ":lesser evil" mentality and the two-party duopoly almost assures though that that kind of candidate almost certainly has no realistic shot at the white house -_-

 

[Trakar]

Meh... I want someone who's able to incorporate some of the core - best - qualities of conservatism and progressivism into their decision making. In other words a legitimate moderate who can hold both types of positions.

I see no good qualities in conservatism. It seems greedy, regressive and repressive.

I have such a hard time with Bernie Sanders since he's a good example with me of someone who leans too far in one direction... I love his social views, economically though he's selling a dream so far. The ":lesser evil" mentality and the two-party duopoly almost assures though that that kind of candidate almost certainly has no realistic shot at the white house -_-

Largely agreed, but that won't change without trying to institute change,...did I mention regressives, and regressive-lites?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I see no good qualities in conservatism. It seems greedy, regressive and repressive.

As should be the thought for any pure-bred economic system. I see a certain need for social safety nets and a somewhat progressive tax system. But I'm not for the really high marginal rates from a few decades ago, which are IMO blatantly punitive more than they are for debt reduction and propping up the middle class. I also need to see real math for Sanders's proposals before I start changing my views on them.

Anyway... my brand of "conservatism" is probably different from that of the candidates I'm looking at. (I.E. I'm not religious, interfering with civil unions is unnecessary government intrusion into personal matters, etc.).

Some of the progressive agenda's I've agreed with are the expansion of LGBT rights to a certain extent compromising with the healthcare issue.

Just to name a few clarifications on my views.

Largely agreed, but that won't change without trying to institute change,...did I mention regressives, and regressive-lites?

Instituting change where needed badly enough isn't such a bad thing. I'm just wary of making the political system too much into a single ideology - which is typically my concern with the current state of affairs.


Either way it goes without saying... I'm likely not gonna jump on the same bandwagon as you. But I have way better respect for people who have their principals in order. Count yourself in that category
C-c-combo breaker is with some interesting intersection on the independent voting end

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, eye-rolling does seem to suit you.

How do you perceive my actions as causing damage to myself more than the object of my anger? (I think a better case of this would be those who select Hillary though they feel that ideologically and principally they agree more with Sanders and his policy positions)

Were you asleep from 2000-2008?

Don't think ruining the country and half the world affected you?

 

[Loss Leader]

Conservative sycophants won't change if progressives keep protecting them from the pain of their decisions.

For a while now, it was basically kept together by the sheer force of John Boehner's will. When that goes away, there are going to be some very hard truths for the far right to face. We'll be like a parliamentary nation with a minority government. Nobody is going to be able to move on their agenda without serious compromise. And if they refuse to learn that lesson, the US will crash just as badly as any nation (democratic or otherwise) with ideologues at the helm.

To relate this to HRC: she's been working with Republicans (and watching how to work with Rebublicans) for forty years. Sanders, as an independent, has been in an even better position to learn to compromise.

When has Trump ever compromised with anybody?

 

[Trakar]

For a while now, it was basically kept together by the sheer force of John Boehner's will. When that goes away, there are going to be some very hard truths for the far right to face. We'll be like a parliamentary nation with a minority government. Nobody is going to be able to move on their agenda without serious compromise. And if they refuse to learn that lesson, the US will crash just as badly as any nation (democratic or otherwise) with ideologues at the helm.

To relate this to HRC: she's been working with Republicans (and watching how to work with Rebublicans) for forty years. Sanders, as an independent, has been in an even better position to learn to compromise.

When has Trump ever compromised with anybody?

The conservative sycophants I was primarily talking about were conservative voters who are largely protected from the worst effects of conservatism by progressive public policies,...but, what you said as well.

 

[Trakar]

Were you asleep from 2000-2008?

Don't think ruining the country and half the world affected you?

As I served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, yes, it affected me.
No pain, no gain.

 

[Trakar]

...Either way it goes without saying... I'm likely not gonna jump on the same bandwagon as you. But I have way better respect for people who have their principals in order. Count yourself in that category
C-c-combo breaker is with some interesting intersection on the independent voting end

I don't require that everyone always agree with me, or do things my way. I had a long military career, and a respectably decent business career. No matter how such is often portrayed in fiction, both of these depend heavily on pragmatism, negotiation and compromise, but these practices don't require lies to your opponents much less your potential allies.

As senator Sanders intimated, those with different ideologies aren't necessarily enemies, and there is little sense in turning an opponent into an enemy, when you might easily ally with them on a different issue. I respect your discussion and perspective, even though I frequently disagree with it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For a while now, it was basically kept together by the sheer force of John Boehner's will. When that goes away, there are going to be some very hard truths for the far right to face. We'll be like a parliamentary nation with a minority government. Nobody is going to be able to move on their agenda without serious compromise. And if they refuse to learn that lesson, the US will crash just as badly as any nation (democratic or otherwise) with ideologues at the helm.

To relate this to HRC: she's been working with Republicans (and watching how to work with Rebublicans) for forty years. Sanders, as an independent, has been in an even better position to learn to compromise.

When has Trump ever compromised with anybody?

I keep hoping for the sane Republicans to break with their idiot brethren right-wingers and figure out that deals with the middle left are a wiser direction to take.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, yes, it affected me.
No pain, no gain.

So do you think then, that the small number of people who chose Nader over Gore, had they decided not to choose their poorly timed ideological decision to promote a third party might have saved us from Bush and the resulting 8 years of tragic consequences?

I would like to see the system changed as well. And to do that people have to take that step. But my POV is that you have to see evidence that step is realistic (in this case, change Congress, that would be clear evidence the public is ready).

It's magical thinking, not realistic thinking that Nader was going to lead us to that viable third party. And the stakes were thousands of lives too high.

Change Congress. Chip away, don't expect some magical charismatic leader to fix everything for you. You need to be willing to do the hard work if you want to change the direction of this country.

You go for the easy fix, you get GW Bush and all the disasters the GOP is capable of. If they didn't learn their lesson with GW, what makes you think they are going to learn the lesson with Trump? Or heaven forbid Ted Cruz or Carson.


I'll tell you the lesson you should be looking at, the GOP is really good at framing. They will frame Sanders as a socialist and Clinton as untrustworthy. They framed Obama as a socialist, and they lost because he had more going for him than their negative framing could overcome.

Clinton has more going for her than the GOP framing can overcome. But Sanders doesn't.

 

[Trakar]

So do you think then, that the small number of people who chose Nader over Gore, had they decided not to choose their poorly timed ideological decision to promote a third party might have saved us from Bush and the resulting 8 years of tragic consequences?

No, Gore won the popular election by over half a million votes. I do not think that the miniscule Nader vote (predominantly located in States Gore won handily, and generally inconsequential elsewhere) had any substantive impact on any significant aspect of the 2000 election.

I would like to see the system changed as well...

So what has held you back all your life? Movements don't happen when everyone waits for everyone else to make it easy and safe before you take a chance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, Gore won the popular election by over half a million votes. I do not think that the miniscule Nader vote (predominantly located in States Gore won handily, and generally inconsequential elsewhere) had any substantive impact on any significant aspect of the 2000 election.

While Scalia and his SCOTUS buddies are much more to blame and some people on the left refuse to say Nader bears any guilt, any of a number of things including Nader's candidacy could have tipped the scales in Gore's favor.
From Wiki:

In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes [in FL], which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat.

Even accounting for only 60% of those voters choosing Gore had Nader not run, and even accounting for the butterfly ballots and the chads and the SCOTUS decision, if Nader hadn't run, Gore would have carried FL.

It's quite the apologetic position in all the articles claiming Nader was not responsible for the 2000 election outcome.

Yes, he was.

Yes, one can also point to other key factors, any one of which could have changed the outcome. But that doesn't mean Nader wasn't also a lost opportunity.

So what has held you back all your life? Movements don't happen when everyone waits for everyone else to make it easy and safe before you take a chance.

You're making false assumptions about me. What makes you think I've been held back? I've been an activist my whole life. I'm telling you from my experience that change requires hard work and a lot of time. Sanders is magical thinking. Working on the gerrymandering and on changing Congress are steps that can be realistically accomplished. A magical leader from ideal-land can't get it done.

 

[Loss Leader]

I keep hoping for the sane Republicans to break with their idiot brethren right-wingers and figure out that deals with the middle left are a wiser direction to take.

It's happened. It's the only reason we have a budget. The so-called "clean" spending bills are passed by a coalition of moderate Republicans and close to all Dems. Witness.

 

[Random]

So do you think then, that the small number of people who chose Nader over Gore, had they decided not to choose their poorly timed ideological decision to promote a third party might have saved us from Bush and the resulting 8 years of tragic consequences?

I would like to see the system changed as well. And to do that people have to take that step. But my POV is that you have to see evidence that step is realistic (in this case, change Congress, that would be clear evidence the public is ready).

It's magical thinking, not realistic thinking that Nader was going to lead us to that viable third party. And the stakes were thousands of lives too high.

Change Congress. Chip away, don't expect some magical charismatic leader to fix everything for you. You need to be willing to do the hard work if you want to change the direction of this country.

You go for the easy fix, you get GW Bush and all the disasters the GOP is capable of. If they didn't learn their lesson with GW, what makes you think they are going to learn the lesson with Trump? Or heaven forbid Ted Cruz or Carson.


I'll tell you the lesson you should be looking at, the GOP is really good at framing. They will frame Sanders as a socialist and Clinton as untrustworthy. They framed Obama as a socialist, and they lost because he had more going for him than their negative framing could overcome.

Clinton has more going for her than the GOP framing can overcome. But Sanders doesn't.

Nader in 2000 (as well as Perot in 1992, although people seem to forget that one) showed that under our current electoral system, promoting third parties can lead to the election of opposing candidates that you might have defeated otherwise. Pretty much the only relatively safe mechanism for marginalized voters to express their disapproval is with primary challenges. And look, that is what Sanders is doing.

If Sanders loses the primary, then we get Hillary in the general, my second choice based on the current crop of all candidates. If Sanders wins the primary, then I get first first choice running in the general.

You say that Sanders can't win the general and you are willing to settle right now because of that, and that is your right. I think that you, and a lot of other people, are really underestimating him, especially when compared to the who he might be running against in the general. Sanders vs Trump? I mean, come on!

 

[Loss Leader]

You say that Sanders can't win the general and you are willing to settle right now because of that, and that is your right. I think that you, and a lot of other people, are really underestimating him, especially when compared to the who he might be running against in the general. Sanders vs Trump? I mean, come on!

You make a good argument for holding all primaries on the same day. By the time of my state's primary, the race is usually long over. 2008 was an exception, though even by that time they were already talking about Clinton needing the "super-delegates" to secure the nomination.

 

[Olowkow]

Watching Secretary Clinton's testimony at the Benghazi hearing, I can't help thinking that the republicans have provided a very cool, polished and professional presidential candidate with a wonderful opportunity to provide voters with a glimpse of her credentials, for free. At the same time, many of the false accusations against her have been solidly debunked, and many committee members have had a their chance to look even sillier, more antagonistic and annoying than ever.

I believe we are witnessing the next president of the United States making the case that she is the most competent and level headed person for the job.