Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Maya22]

If you find someone like that, I agree that it is childish. If you read what I wrote, you'll know that's not the case with me.

I voted for Bernie in the NY primary, although I had to file an affidavit vote to do it as I had moved townships from the last election. This 'if you don't Hate Hillary enough to not vote or vote for someone else in the general election, you're not really a Bernie supporter' line of reasoning needs to stop. It's come up far too often in far too many venues.

I agree with that. I plan on voting for Sanders in June, and for the Democratic nominee in November, whoever he or she may be. There is too much at stake for me to do otherwise in November.

 

[Trakar]

Um, yeah, if they won't vote for Hillary but will vote for Trump, those cannot be what they care about.

Voting for Trump over Hillary because you care about 'integrity and honesty' is either momentously stupid or delusional.

Frankly a lot of the Bernie supporters have made me a lot less passionate about advocating for him. 'Children' is a fair assessment of anyone who, failing to get exactly what they want, throw a tantrum and act against their own best interests.

I'm rather certain that the main reason behind my almost being convinced by Hillary's supporters here that Trump is a lessor evil compared to Hillary, is the fact that I don't constantly hear Trump supporters making such droll defenses of Hillary's personal and professional flaws while promoting her as the answer to everyone's (no one's) problems. I'm sure by the time November rolls around I be so disgusted with both candidates and their supporters that neither will have to worry about getting my support. That said, in this venue, Hillary's supporters do her no favors, and she is starting out with an insurmountably steep road toward convincing those who don't support her to change their minds to begin with.

Its not like I would walk across the street to spit in her face, or anything (unlike the vast majority of Republicans and Independents), but Cruz and his evangelical dominionism is about the only Republican who might have been able to convince me that Hillary was the lessor of the two evils in an electoral match up.

 

[Trakar]

I agree with that. I plan on voting for Sanders in June, and for the Democratic nominee in November, whoever he or she may be. There is too much at stake for me to do otherwise in November.

What, exactly, do you feel is at stake, that will be adequately addressed by Hillary and made horribly worse by all of the Republican candidates?

 

[BobTheCoward]

What, exactly, do you feel is at stake, that will be adequately addressed by Hillary and made horribly worse by all of the Republican candidates?

For median Democrats? I imagine every major tissue to them.

 

[varwoche]

What, exactly, do you feel is at stake, that will be adequately addressed by Hillary and made horribly worse by all of the Republican candidates?

SCOTUS composition, the single most important factor for advancing causes that progressives (fake and otherwise) advocate.

 

[BobTheCoward]

SCOTUS composition, the single most important factor for advancing causes that progressives (fake and otherwise) advocate.

I hat this argument. I read it two ways.

1) you think a hack partisan is more important than getting a good arbiter of the Constitution.

2) you think every major progressive goal happens to be Constitutional.

The former is someone who should be nowhere near power, and the latter has no intellectual honesty.

 

[Trakar]

SCOTUS composition, the single most important factor for advancing causes that progressives (fake and otherwise) advocate.

The questions was directed to Maya, but I'm sure you have a perspective on the issue. Just as I did in my opposition to GWB at this point in 2000.

What leads you to believe that Hillary will be able to alter the current SCOTUS composition, or would substantively improve it even if she is able to alter it?

If you will, I would also like to know what makes you think that whoever the Republican nominee would be able to alter the current SCOTUS composition, or would substantively make it worse even if they are able to alter it?

 

[varwoche]

I hat this argument. I read it two ways.

1) you think a hack partisan is more important than getting a good arbiter of the Constitution.

2) you think every major progressive goal happens to be Constitutional.

The former is someone who should be nowhere near power, and the latter has no intellectual honesty.

Whereas I hat straw.

 

[Fudbucker]

You know I directly quoted someone who said they were almost ready to vote for Trump, correct?

You also highlighted a point I made that had nothing to do with voting for Trump, which is what I was responding to.

 

[Trakar]

For median Democrats? I imagine every major tissue to them.

Define "median Democrats," please.

 

[Brainster]

SCOTUS composition, the single most important factor for advancing causes that progressives (fake and otherwise) advocate.

One of the main reasons I am not voting for Trump (or Hillary/Sanders) is that I consider him very unlikely to nominate a strong conservative for the Supreme Court.

 

[Trakar]

One of the main reasons I am not voting for Trump (or Hillary/Sanders) is that I consider him very unlikely to nominate a strong conservative for the Supreme Court.

Exactly one of the same reasons I say that many of Hillary's supporters have almost convinced me that in the choice between Hillary and Trump, it may be Trump who is the lessor evil (from a progressive perspective).

I have no delusions that Trump is anything other than a self-centered, egomaniacal, authoritarian of limited intellectual prowess or curiosity,...and I see Hillary in very similar terms. The only real, primary difference I see between them is that Trump is not beholden to big money interests though he'd like pats on the back from all such interests, and Hillary aspires to be more like Trump in this regard, some day.

 

[varwoche]

Exactly one of the same reasons I say that many of Hillary's supporters have almost convinced me that in the choice between Hillary and Trump, it may be Trump who is the lessor evil (from a progressive perspective).

I have no delusions that Trump is anything other than a self-centered, egomaniacal, authoritarian of limited intellectual prowess or curiosity,...and I see Hillary in very similar terms. The only real, primary difference I see between them is that Trump is not beholden to big money interests though he'd like pats on the back from all such interests, and Hillary aspires to be more like Trump in this regard, some day.

A stark example of anti-Clinton irrationality, bordering on the surreal.

By the way, Trump's fave SCOTUS member is Clarence Thomas.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Define "median Democrats," please.

Of likely Democrat voters, the weighted median positions of that group.

For example, Clinton is not the most liberal on abortion.... But neither is the Democratic voterr. Numbers I looked up for 2015 show Democrats at 26% chose for "legal in all cases" while 39% selected "legal in most cases"

Mileage may vary, risk my evidence is bad....yadda yadda yadda.


ETA: I would be interested to find out the numbers on conflict. My hypothesis would be the average Democrat is not anti-war (for other purposes than pure self defense), but simply has separate reasons for use of force compared to republicans.

 

[Darat]

Exactly one of the same reasons I say that many of Hillary's supporters have almost convinced me that in the choice between Hillary and Trump, it may be Trump who is the lessor evil (from a progressive perspective).

I have no delusions that Trump is anything other than a self-centered, egomaniacal, authoritarian of limited intellectual prowess or curiosity,...and I see Hillary in very similar terms. The only real, primary difference I see between them is that Trump is not beholden to big money interests though he'd like pats on the back from all such interests, and Hillary aspires to be more like Trump in this regard, some day.

Trump *IS* big money, you can't get much more beholden to big money than that!

 

[ThunderChunky]

I find the number of crazies that have been stirred up by the Sanders campaign to be disturbing. These people are like Ron Paul supporters on Scientology. Every election Sanders loses is "rigged," Hillary is the devil, women and minorities don't know what is in their self interest, and the one I love the most "Bernie is a once in a lifetime candidate." Really? The people who are too young to even remember the first Clinton era are telling us that the Sanders candidacy is more historical than the first female president?

 

[The Big Dog]

Trump *IS* big money, you can't get much more beholden to big money than that!

No, Trump has what we call "**** you" money, basically so much money that he is not beholden to anyone.

Clinton and her husband have to sell themselves everyday, basically turning their lives in "public service" (and do not think I did not gag when I wrote that) into a cash cow.

 

[The Big Dog]

I find the number of crazies that have been stirred up by the Sanders campaign to be disturbing. These people are like Ron Paul supporters on Scientology. Every election Sanders loses is "rigged," Hillary is the devil, women and minorities don't know what is in their self interest, and the one I love the most "Bernie is a once in a lifetime candidate." Really? The people who are too young to even remember the first Clinton era are telling us that the Sanders candidacy is more historical than the first female president?

Yes, we have had plenty of corporatist/establishment candidates named Clinton already.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Every election Sanders loses is "rigged,"

Even impartial folks have noted some...anomalies.

Hillary is the devil,

Naw, just a neo-liberal. People get those two mixed up all the time, though.

women and minorities don't know what is in their self interest,

You do know that many of Sanders' supporters are women and minorities?

and the one I love the most "Bernie is a once in a lifetime candidate." Really? The people who are too young to even remember the first Clinton era are telling us that the Sanders candidacy is more historical than the first female president?

I think that the first liberal in the White House since the 70s could be pretty historical.

 

[Trakar]

...I think that the first liberal in the White House since the 70s could be pretty historical.

The first true Progressive since the beginning of the 20th century, with all due respect to his cousin a few decades later (and the vastly underappreciated Carter administration to which I'm pretty sure you are referring).