I'm thinking of abandoning Bernie

[Skeptic Ginger]

... 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?

Oh I'm sure they are, quite a bit behind the scenes and some in public. The GOP old guard make no secret they do not want Trump but they are leery of losing his followers.

It's a lose lose for the GOP.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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

Post #131.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Post #131.

Nonsense. Your principles could include not being stupid.

This wasn't a reference to you, or anyone for that matter. I was merely saying that idealistic values are one set of values, but the trade off for a competent choice wasn't sans values, they were just different values. 'Not being stupid' was merely meant as one example of many.

Honestly.

Whatever one's idealism is, a person with a different POV is not necessarily less moral.

 

[Trakar]

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

I see no benefits in supporting any corporatist conservative administration, heavy/lite or strong/weak. If the Democratic voters, in majority, prefer a corporatist conservative administration and policies, then their candidates are not going to get my vote. Which would be a shame given how ripe the Senate looks for a flip of the upper house control. Combine this with a few more progressives in the House and Speaker Ryan might be looking for a few strange bedfellows, especially as the next two elections after 2016 could easily see an expansion of progressivism across the nation. If the Democratic party has actually become the corporatist conservative party, then perhaps they should clean their house of those regressive elements rather than wasting their energy trying to shame my progressivism.

You want me to vote Democratic, put forward a progressive administration under the Democratic banner.

I vote for things I want to see happen,
not against things I fear might happen.

 

[zorro99]

Bernie's age

Should Bernie 's age be a consideration in voting for him?

 

[Trakar]

Should Bernie 's age be a consideration in voting for him?

I'm voting for the policies not the man.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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!

Yes. A slight majority and they neutered the voting rights act. It's not fear mongering at all to point out the motives of conservatives.

 

[quadraginta]

Yes. A slight majority and they neutered the voting rights act. It's not fear mongering at all to point out the motives of conservatives.

Much less the actions.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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

Evidence was not faked. The executive branch weighed evidence. I don't see an argument that Al Gore would have reached substantially different conclusions when presented with the same evidence.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This wasn't a reference to you, or anyone for that matter. I was merely saying that idealistic values are one set of values, but the trade off for a competent choice wasn't sans values, they were just different values. 'Not being stupid' was merely meant as one example of many.

Honestly.

Whatever one's idealism is, a person with a different POV is not necessarily less moral.

Nonsense. Your principles could include not being stupid.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Should Bernie 's age be a consideration in voting for him?

It certainly would make his choice for VP of more import.

"Heartbeat away" and all that.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

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

I love this.

Bush and his Republican cohorts are idiots...

...except when they are masterfully manipulating the Democrats to their own ends.

Then, suddenly, they are diabolically clever!

Can't have it both ways.

 

[uke2se]

I see no benefits in supporting any corporatist conservative administration, heavy/lite or strong/weak. If the Democratic voters, in majority, prefer a corporatist conservative administration and policies, then their candidates are not going to get my vote. Which would be a shame given how ripe the Senate looks for a flip of the upper house control. Combine this with a few more progressives in the House and Speaker Ryan might be looking for a few strange bedfellows, especially as the next two elections after 2016 could easily see an expansion of progressivism across the nation. If the Democratic party has actually become the corporatist conservative party, then perhaps they should clean their house of those regressive elements rather than wasting their energy trying to shame my progressivism.

You want me to vote Democratic, put forward a progressive administration under the Democratic banner.

I vote for things I want to see happen,
not against things I fear might happen.

So you see no difference in the outcome of a GOP administration and a Dem administration?

 

[BobTheCoward]

So you see no difference in the outcome of a GOP administration and a Dem administration?

Nothing significant.

 

[uke2se]

Nothing significant.

Climate change, abortions, gay rights and minorities aren't significant?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Climate change, abortions, gay rights and minorities aren't significant?

Short answer: not significant.

Long answer: when we consider a Clinton nomination versus the Republican, neither will have significant impact on the issues. Any Hillary climate policy enacted would be a fig leaf that protects business. The abortion and gay rights fights are at the state level battles now. Same for minorities coupled with strong party ties to the police unions.

 

[uke2se]

Any Hillary climate policy enacted would be a fig leaf that protects business.

Considering the fact that Hillary actually acknowledges AGW and doesn't think it's a hoax, I'd say she's vastly above any GOP candidate on this issue. With the Paris agreement, she'd be pushed to ensure the US does it's part. Not so with a Gooper who "doesn't believe" it.

The abortion and gay rights fights are at the state level battles now.

Future supremes would ensure it doesn't remain there.

Same for minorities coupled with strong party ties to the police unions.

You've noticed no difference in how Democratic candidates have handled race issues vs GOP candidates?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Considering the fact that Hillary actually acknowledges AGW and doesn't think it's a hoax, I'd say she's vastly above any GOP candidate on this issue. With the Paris agreement, she'd be pushed to ensure the US does it's part. Not so with a Gooper who "doesn't believe" it.



Future supremes would ensure it doesn't remain there.



You've noticed no difference in how Democratic candidates have handled race issues vs GOP candidates?

Acknowledging something while doing very little is not significantly different from not acknowledging it.

Difference on race issues by the president? No, there is definitely nothing significant there.

If you are an American progressive, and see an American far left that is to the right of moderate Europeans, it probably best advances your long term goals to see the party wrecked.

 

[uke2se]

Acknowledging something while doing very little is not significantly different from not acknowledging it. If you are an American progressive, and see an American far left that is to the right of moderate Europeans, it probably best advances your long term goals to see the party wrecked.

The problem is what happens to the country and the world between now and then. But screw it, right? It's about principles!

 

[BobTheCoward]

The problem is what happens to the country and the world between now and then. But screw it, right? It's about principles!

You are not listening. It is about results. The whole point is that a Hillary admin would not produce results significantly better than the Republican. Therefore, a strategy that produces long term, significant advances should be pursued.