I'm thinking of abandoning Bernie

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, you have been given countless evidence against your weak arguments for that war criminal, so maybe you're right that it is a bit personal, being that you are obviously not willing to change your mind in light of evidence. Trakar provided some I think solid thoughts about why Sanders is so much superior in what looks now like a race against Trump, than Clinton is with all her baggage. You came up with no solid counter-argument, not even a non-solid one like "she's a woman".

You argue with insults: "your idol", I call you on it and you launch into some condescending "you have been given countless evidence against your weak arguments".

Hint to CLE: if you want to have a discussion, arguing with ad homs and insults is no way to do it.

Perhaps you are enjoying this conversation with yourself. Personalizing the discussion only leads me to put you on ignore.

 

[uke2se]

What drawbacks do you see that Sanders has that Clinton does not, in a general election, where all Democratic candidates will be painted as socialists and Hillary brings all the baggage of the Clinton name to the game?

That has nothing to do with what I am arguing about. I am arguing for you to vote the Democratic ticket whomever it may be.

 

[uke2se]

No one in the current group scares me as bad as GWB did at this same point in the election, not even the same order of magnitude. A lot of stupid and egomania, more than a little psychopathy, but stupid is leading the pack and stupid doesn't have the blessing and support of the dangerously evil this time around (Cruz being the only potential exception I've noted so far). I don't want the GOP to win the White House but I can't vote for another 4 years of conservative-lite either, even if that is what the Democratic party is determined to offer as an alternative to the GOP again.

What benefits do you see in helping the nation to get 4 years of conservative-strong, plus a slew of conservative-strong supremes?

 

[BobTheCoward]

What benefits do you see in helping the nation to get 4 years of conservative-strong, plus a slew of conservative-strong supremes?

I think part of the point is there won't be a significant difference in the cases and rulings before the supreme Court regardless of the winner. What you perceive as big differences is merely a reflection of parochial thinking.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What benefits do you see in helping the nation to get 4 years of conservative-strong, plus a slew of conservative-strong supremes?

More power to conservatives, that's the "benefit." Right now, they've tipped the voting rights away from minorities a little. With a larger majority in the SCOTUS, maybe they'll simply take away voting rights from women and minorities outright. Oh, and women won't have to make decisions about abortion, they'll simply have no abortions at all. And the poor, let them eat cake.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Hint to CLE: if you want to have a discussion, arguing with ad homs and insults is no way to do it.

Physician, heal thyself! You called me "stupid" above, for disagreeing with you.

 

[Dog Town]

With a larger majority in the SCOTUS, maybe they'll simply take away voting rights from women and minorities outright.

Seriously, what is it with all the fear mongering around here?
Sounds like a touring revival tent show!
"Give us your money, or hell is your next stop!"

ETA: You are aware the Majority, on SCOTUS, were Republican nominations!

 

[Trakar]

What benefits do you see in helping the nation to get 4 years of conservative-strong, plus a slew of conservative-strong supremes?

What benefits do you see in electing a corporatist, conservative-lite administration versus electing an actual progressive administration?

 

[Trakar]

That has nothing to do with what I am arguing about. I am arguing for you to vote the Democratic ticket whomever it may be.

And I refuse to vote for a corporatist conservative administration regardless of which party supports that administration.

 

[Belz...]

So the OP is thinking of not voting for someone because the candidate has some crazy supporters? I guess that means Travis won't be voting for anyone. Ever.

 

[Senex]

The biggest reason I wouldn't like Clinton to be President is her last name. I don't like a President to be a close family member of a previous President because it makes the US look third world. What were the odds George W was the best candidate and just coincidence his dad was President? How did that work out?

I can't vote for any of the republicans because they are all too divisive/crazy. Bernie is the only one standing.

 

[varwoche]

And yet in most of the fundamental ways they are the same. Are either party communist? Fascist? ...

It is indeed a two party system, and three's a lot not to like about it. There are many similarities between the parties. But there are also significant differences*, e.g. SCOTUS composition, abortion rights, LGBT rights, recognition of global warming and proposals for same, and treatment of Muslims to name a few. It's vastly over-simplistic to view things in pure black and white.

The votes for Nader in 2000 didn't work out well at all. No lessons were learned, and we got this catastrophic war in Iraq to show for it.

I shall accept this as a compliment because I'm certain you wouldn't stoop to rudeness.

From my perspective, I was entirely civil. My perspective isn't the final word of course, and I'm not happy to have offended you, so I'll try to do better. Thanks for letting me know.


* I'd like to add war/peace to the list, but that wouldn't be fair this election cycle given Clinton's record. I am hopeful, however, that she will be smarter and less bellicose than President Trump/Cruz.

 

[DavidJames]

It is indeed a two party system, and three's a lot not to like about it. There are many similarities between the parties. But there are also significant differences*, e.g. SCOTUS composition, abortion rights, LGBT rights, recognition of global warming and proposals for same, and treatment of Muslims to name a few. It's vastly over-simplistic to view things in pure black and white.

But convenient as hell.

Edit - off topic, but isn't it strange our Republican/conservatives colleagues aren't having any similar discussions on the relative merits of the current crop of candidates which represent them?

 

[uke2se]

What benefits do you see in electing a corporatist, conservative-lite administration versus electing an actual progressive administration?

The benefits should be obvious. You don't get a conservative-strong administration. Remember, we're still talking about a scenario where Sanders doesn't get the nomination.

I've answered your question. Now answer mine.

Skickat från min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

 

[BobTheCoward]

It is indeed a two party system, and three's a lot not to like about it. There are many similarities between the parties. But there are also significant differences*, e.g. SCOTUS composition, abortion rights, LGBT rights, recognition of global warming and proposals for same, and treatment of Muslims to name a few. It's vastly over-simplistic to view things in pure black and white.

The votes for Nader in 2000 didn't work out well at all. No lessons were learned, and we got this catastrophic war in Iraq to show for it.

From my perspective, I was entirely civil. My perspective isn't the final word of course, and I'm not happy to have offended you, so I'll try to do better. Thanks for letting me know.


* I'd like to add war/peace to the list, but that wouldn't be fair this election cycle given Clinton's record. I am hopeful, however, that she will be smarter and less bellicose than President Trump/Cruz.

I am not confident that Al Gore would nt have invaded Iraq after 9/11. It was greatly supported by a mainstream wing of the Democratic party he was a part of.

 

[DavidJames]

I am not confident that Al Gore would nt have invaded Iraq after 9/11. It was greatly supported by a mainstream wing of the Democratic party he was a part of.

Attacking Iraq was part of the Bush administrations DNA, back from Bush 1. Gore may have gone after Afghanistan cause, you know, thats who was sheltering OBL.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Edit - off topic, but isn't it strange our Republican/conservatives colleagues aren't having any similar discussions on the relative merits of the current crop of candidates which represent them?

They're Republicans.

When the Party wants their opinion it'll give it to them.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Attacking Iraq was part of the Bush administrations DNA, back from Bush 1. Gore may have gone after Afghanistan cause, you know, thats who was sheltering OBL.

Bush got a lot of support from Democrats because military intervention is part of their DNA.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Physician, heal thyself! You called me "stupid" above, for disagreeing with you.

You'll need to post the link or the post number. I do not recall doing this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am not confident that Al Gore would nt have invaded Iraq after 9/11. It was greatly supported by a mainstream wing of the Democratic party he was a part of.

It was only supported because Bush/Cheney et al rigged the evidence. Gore was not one to fake evidence to get something done.