I'm thinking of abandoning Bernie

[uke2se]

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.

I think this position is delusional.

 

[Trakar]

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

Dem and GOP are irrelevant to me. What I do see is a difference in Conservatism versus Progressivism, HRC is a conservative, I have no use for conservatism.

 

[uke2se]

Dem and GOP are irrelevant to me. What I do see is a difference in Conservatism versus Progressivism, HRC is a conservative, I have no use for conservatism.

So you are willing to willing to endure an extended period (4-? years depending on how many supremes are exchanged)of stronger conservative influence, and a loon in the White House, for the benefit of not feeling bad for voting for the least bad option?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I think this position is delusional.

And that is fine. Please claim that. But you can't claim to be pragmatic and say that trakar is engaged in principle over pragmatism. He or she believes it advances the goal.

 

[Trakar]

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

Saying approximately the right words accounts for very little without dedicated and significant action to back up those words.

 

[uke2se]

Saying approximately the right words accounts for very little without dedicated and significant action to back up those words.

But you seemingly have no trouble making sure someone is elected who say the wrong words continuously.

 

[Travis]

'Sides'? You're already in the wrong. You've fallen into the trap of the two-party system, where politics is necessarily a two-sided war. That's why things don't get better: the two 'sides' are essentially the same. They exist to perpetuate themselves. They can battle eternally, and they want to, because they are parasites leeching off the people. As long as you're distracted by their fighting you're not a threat to their parasitical existence.

Don't vote for 'sides'. Vote for people.

Do tell me how Hillary is the same as them. Make your case. Convince me that Hillary is just as bad as them on the issues I most care about: gay rights, reproductive freedom and freedom of religion. Do that and I might be persuaded.

Please specify which GOP candidates seriously advocate and push for the legal authority to kill all gays.

Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum are the most anti gay. Two of them attended a conference chaired by Kevin Swanson who is definitely on record as repeatedly advocating for executing homosexuals. Check their histories on right wing watch and then come back and tell me they are indistinguishable from Hillary.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/ted-cruz
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/mike-huckabee
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/rick-santorum

Note that all of them promise to not enforce supreme court decisions on gay marriage or abortion. Two issues I care deeply about.

Are you seriously suggesting that a rejection of Hillary's lying, corporatism and international war mongering is the same as being a kill all gays GOP boogeyman?

Yes. Actually worse since I don't really see the problem with her being a corporatist or supporting the Iraq War. Hell I was in favor of the Iraq War too back then.

 

[Trakar]

But you seemingly have no trouble making sure someone is elected who say the wrong words continuously.

Trying to lay the blame on those who vote for the right policies, because you'd rather vote for a lessor evil (who says what you want to hear while hampering substantive change and real action to address the problems of concern) is, in my opinion, warped

 

[uke2se]

Trying to lay the blame on those who vote for the right policies, because you'd rather vote for a lessor evil (who says what you want to hear while hampering substantive change and real action to address the problems of concern) is, in my opinion, warped

I'm not laying blame on those who vote for the right policies. I lay blame on those who refuse to vote for the lesser evil when they can no longer vote for the right policies. I think I've explained this enough for now.

 

[varwoche]

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.

The extent to which this strategy worked in 2000 with Nader as spoiler = not whatsoever. The party wasn't wrecked, just the country.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The extent to which this strategy worked in 2000 with Nader as spoiler = not whatsoever. The party wasn't wrecked, just the country.

Maybe you should ask trakar if traker thinks Gore would have done a better job.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

No. They fabricated the evidence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The "both sides are the same" folk are just Conservatives trying to convince the world that all politicians are evil, therefore vote for the conservatives or don't vote at all. It's a nonsense narrative that only serves the conservative cause. If we all believe them, then we'd still be living in a country where black people were slaves and women couldn't vote.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The "both sides are the same" folk are just Conservatives trying to convince the world that all politicians are evil, therefore vote for the conservatives or don't vote at all. It's a nonsense narrative that only serves the conservative cause. If we all believe them, then we'd still be living in a country where black people were slaves and women couldn't vote.

Yeah, I'm such a notorious conservative, what my preference for Bernie Sanders and all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Yawn....

Yes, evidence was faked!

There was no evidence Saddam was looking to buy yellow-cake in Niger. That has been established.

What's his face, aka Curveball, made stuff up.

George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie

 

[The_Animus]

And that is fine. Please claim that. But you can't claim to be pragmatic and say that trakar is engaged in principle over pragmatism. He or she believes it advances the goal.

Yeah many on this forum don't seem to understand this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nonsense. Your principles could include not being stupid.

Yes, that is what I said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Who said they weren't clever?

I've brought this up in a myriad of threads. The GOP is really bad on science except in one area, the science of marketing. The DNC is much better on science except in one area, the science of marketing.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yawn....

Yes, evidence was faked!

There was no evidence Saddam was looking to buy yellow-cake in Niger. That has been established.

What's his face, aka Curveball, made stuff up.

George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie

Faked in the sense that assets misled? Sure. Al Gore is not immune to that.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No. They fabricated the evidence.

No, they did not. It was all based on something.