I'm thinking of abandoning Bernie

[Trakar]

Sorry that's narcissistic, head in the sand ignorance. Your example is skewed to support your opinion. So far no one with your view has honestly addressed the realistic difference in the "evils".

I'm done trying to convince self centered "skeptics" who refuse to acknowledge reality. When Cruz or Trump win and stock the supreme court with more Scalia's and Thomas's and RvW gets over turned, gay marriage gets over turned, etc etc. You guys can smugly feel good while everyone suffers the consequence of your ignorance.

Actually, it is just making people responsible for their conservative leanings and the consequences of their own actions. You like a neo-conservative/liberal foreign policy and the lowest possible taxes and regulations on the economy then you have to live with the conservative social agenda that always accompanies such leans to the right. You really want open-minded, broad progressive social policies, bite the bullet and get behind progressive economics and foreign policy.

There's always a piper to pay.

The price for leaning right tends to include income and social justice inequity, lots of foreign intervention/adventurism (protecting the national interest) and trade agreements, treaties and policies that support lower taxes, maximizing corporate profit taking and deregulation and more volatility in the markets.

The price for a seriously progressive social agenda often includes expansion of consumer/worker protection regulation regarding business and industry, higher taxes, a more stable economy and market (worst environment for quick profits and earnings), and a generally non-interventionist foreign policy.

The delusions come from those who think they can pick and choose from the best of both worlds and avoid suffering any consequences or costs for their choices.

 

[Trakar]

Many of Bernies positions have been consistent throughout his life. Regarding the evolved positions Bernie evolved because he thought it was right, not because polling told him it was the right time politically.

Bernie has always fought from very progressive public policy perspective, even when pragmatism drove him to accept a lessor evil in the name of consensus legislation. Hillary seems to fight from a middle ground perspective and seems willing to move as far right as necessary to reach a consensus deal with extreme conservative stances.

Some here are talking about Conservative administration supreme court justices, but as history has shown us even very polarizing administrations can nominate justices who end up not quite what the party loyalists desired: Blackmun, Souter, and Kennedy to name a few. I'm not saying there isn't a chance of getting a conservative justice - or three (regardless of which party wins the White House), what I am saying is that electing a President who is conservative-lite is not a good way to assure progressive supreme court justices get nominated and approved to the SCOTUS bench.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Many of Bernies positions have been consistent throughout his life. Regarding the evolved positions Bernie evolved because he thought it was right, not because polling told him it was the right time politically.

And you know this because you can read minds?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because if a focus group told Clinton tomorrow that she could surge ahead in the polls by turning against gay rights, I think she'd do it. She's a fair-weather friend to the gay. By contrast, Sanders clearly has no problem holding unpopular opinions, a rarity in politicians.

Really, you think Clinton has never stood on principle? I'd say that's total confirmation bias and it ignores her efforts to implement universal health care back during Bill's Presidency, her confrontation of the Chinese treatment of girls in her Women's Conference speech in China in 95 which was highly controversial at the time. And how about her standing up to public opinion when she was criticized by the media in direct interviews both as First Lady of AK and First Lady of the US? Not sitting home to bake cookies is a rather memorable line because it got such negative attention.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'd say that's total confirmation bias and [bla bla]

Another nice hint at that you don't even begin to understand what's wrong in the general picture of US Empire politics.

 

[quadraginta]

I don't see how voting for the most evil candidate or not voting at all makes them any less culpable for the result just because that was their inclination. Nor why those who are inclined to vote 3rd party should shoulder the entirety of the result.

Seems like a very bizarre way of looking at it.

<snip>

'Culpability' on the part of voters seems like a bizarre way to look at it.

What was being discussed was Nader's run as an Independent, and the effect of that on Gore's success.

I don't see those who voted for him aa "culpable" of anything. They looked at the options available and made their choice. That's fine.

If there is any culpability to be found it would be Nader's. He has his faults, but stupidity isn't among them. He knew perfectly well that he had no chance of winning in a general election, and he had to know that any votes he garnered would largely be at the expense of support for Gore.

He just didn't care.

Jonathan Chait of The New Republic;

Then there was the debate within the Nader campaign over where to travel in the waning days of the campaign. Some Nader advisers urged him to spend his time in uncontested states such as New York and California. These states – where liberals and leftists could entertain the thought of voting Nader without fear of aiding Bush – offered the richest harvest of potential votes. But, Martin writes, Nader – who emerges from this account as the house radical of his own campaign – insisted on spending the final days of the campaign on a whirlwind tour of battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Florida. In other words, he chose to go where the votes were scarcest, jeopardizing his own chances of winning 5 percent of the vote, which he needed to gain federal funds in 2004.[84]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#cite_note-prospect1-84​

An open letter from Carl Pope, president of the Sierra Club;

You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge... Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of the environmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your strategy is flawed, dangerous and reckless.[86]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#cite_note-86​

 

[The_Animus]

And you know this because you can read minds?

I can look at what positions were held at what time compared to public polling and try to make inferences.

What's your reason for believing otherwise? Can you read minds? Did Clinton mentally tell you that her evolving on issues at the same time polling suggested it was good politically was just a coincidence?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can look at what positions were held at what time compared to public polling and try to make inferences.

What's your reason for believing otherwise? Can you read minds? Did Clinton mentally tell you that her evolving on issues at the same time polling suggested it was good politically was just a coincidence?

The whole country shifted on gay marriage, why couldn't both Clinton and Sanders have also shifted like so many other people?

Clinton may have been for the tar sands pipeline for any number of reasons that she since reconsidered given the increasing evidence of climate change or perhaps after hearing more from the people who didn't want it to cross their land.

What else has she changed her position on?

You are ascribing one motive when there are many possible explanations.

 

[quadraginta]

The whole country shifted on gay marriage, why couldn't both Clinton and Sanders have also shifted like so many other people?

<snip>

I was going to ask exactly the same question.

Obviously, everyone else must have been responding to the polling data too.

 

[varwoche]

Because if a focus group told Clinton tomorrow that she could surge ahead in the polls by turning against gay rights, I think she'd do it. She's a fair-weather friend to the gay. By contrast, Sanders clearly has no problem holding unpopular opinions, a rarity in politicians.

Sanders' slow evolution on LGBT impresses me as a concession to political realities in Vermont. And his position on gun control is clearly such a concession -- he even says so. Poll driven, just like Clinton, with the notable difference that we all have far greater exposure to Clinton.

* * *

In the last couple of days I read up on Jill Stein for the first time. If I were inclined to rigidly pigeon hole (which I'm not), I'd call her an actual progressive. And I'd call Sanders just another liberal democrat -- poll driven, supports the war machine, adheres to the party line on Israel/Palestine, etc. Sanders is closer to Clinton than he is to Stein.

[neener mode] Vote for Jill Stein! She represents real progressive values, and she rejects the Sanders/Clinton/Cheney war machine. [/neener mode]

I wonder why the purists among us are supporting a pseudo progressive, when Stein is the real deal. Could it be <shudder> because Sanders is more electable?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sanders' slow evolution on LGBT impresses me as a concession to political realities in Vermont. And his position on gun control is clearly such a concession -- he even says so. Poll driven, just like Clinton, with the notable difference that we all have far greater exposure to Clinton.

* * *

In the last couple of days I read up on Jill Stein for the first time. If I were inclined to rigidly pigeon hole (which I'm not), I'd call her an actual progressive. And I'd call Sanders just another liberal democrat -- poll driven, supports the war machine, adheres to the party line on Israel/Palestine, etc. Sanders is closer to Clinton than he is to Stein.

[neener mode] Vote for Jill Stein! She represents real progressive values, and she rejects the Sanders/Clinton/Cheney war machine. [/neener mode]

I wonder why the purists among us are supporting a pseudo progressive, when Stein is the real deal. Could it be <shudder> because Sanders is more electable?

I can't answer for "the purists", but I don't care for the Green Party as several of their key principles are in opposition to my own. I'm also not a "progressive", but perhaps it confuses you that not everybody falls into the same little easily-defined boxes so you can play "sides" in politics. It's precisely that notion that there are sides and everyone has to fall into them somewhere that causes politics to be such a disastrous mess.

 

[varwoche]

I can't answer for "the purists", but I don't care for the Green Party as several of their key principles are in opposition to my own. I'm also not a "progressive", but perhaps it confuses you that not everybody falls into the same little easily-defined boxes so you can play "sides" in politics. It's precisely that notion that there are sides and everyone has to fall into them somewhere that causes politics to be such a disastrous mess.

To be clear, I added the line of asterisks in an attempt to indicate that the second part of my post wasn't addressed to you.

 

[TragicMonkey]

To be clear, I added the line of asterisks in an attempt to indicate that the second part of my post wasn't addressed to you.

To be even more clear, "asterisk" is a hilarious word.

 

[kellyb]

I can't answer for "the purists", but I don't care for the Green Party as several of their key principles are in opposition to my own.

Which ones?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sanders' slow evolution on LGBT impresses me as a concession to political realities in Vermont. And his position on gun control is clearly such a concession -- he even says so. Poll driven, just like Clinton, with the notable difference that we all have far greater exposure to Clinton.

* * *

In the last couple of days I read up on Jill Stein for the first time. If I were inclined to rigidly pigeon hole (which I'm not), I'd call her an actual progressive. And I'd call Sanders just another liberal democrat -- poll driven, supports the war machine, adheres to the party line on Israel/Palestine, etc. Sanders is closer to Clinton than he is to Stein.

[neener mode] Vote for Jill Stein! She represents real progressive values, and she rejects the Sanders/Clinton/Cheney war machine. [/neener mode]

I wonder why the purists among us are supporting a pseudo progressive, when Stein is the real deal. Could it be <shudder> because Sanders is more electable?

Twice I have voted for the libertarian candidate.

 

[varwoche]

Twice I have voted for the libertarian candidate.

Here's hoping not in 2004! That was the good old days.

 

[Brainster]

So the Weekend at Bernie's is over, and he's starting to stink?

 

[Trakar]

Sanders' slow evolution on LGBT impresses me as a concession to political realities in Vermont. And his position on gun control is clearly such a concession -- he even says so. Poll driven, just like Clinton, with the notable difference that we all have far greater exposure to Clinton.

* * *

In the last couple of days I read up on Jill Stein for the first time. If I were inclined to rigidly pigeon hole (which I'm not), I'd call her an actual progressive. And I'd call Sanders just another liberal democrat -- poll driven, supports the war machine, adheres to the party line on Israel/Palestine, etc. Sanders is closer to Clinton than he is to Stein.

[neener mode] Vote for Jill Stein! She represents real progressive values, and she rejects the Sanders/Clinton/Cheney war machine. [/neener mode]

I wonder why the purists among us are supporting a pseudo progressive, when Stein is the real deal. Could it be <shudder> because Sanders is more electable?

For myself, it comes down to a handful of primary issues, where Sanders' positions and policies more closely mirror my own. The other issue, of course, is that Ms. Stein has already won her party's nomination, and so will remain in contention for my vote until I cast it. She is my most clear second choice, at least as long as my first choice is still a viable contender for the Democratic nomination.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Here's hoping not in 2004! That was the good old days.

Those stances are very similar to mine. Which is why he is one of my favorite votes cast for president.

 

[quadraginta]

Sanders' slow evolution on LGBT impresses me as a concession to political realities in Vermont.

<snip>

Are you saying that you would have been more sanguine about his sincerity had the change been abrupt instead?