I'm thinking of abandoning Bernie

[varwoche]

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

My understanding is that both Sanders and Clinton supported civil unions with full legal rights early on, but not "marriage". (If I ran the circus, I would have made civil union the only legal construct, and left the definition of ceremonial marriage to the churches. But I digress, and it all panned out.) I speculate this was semantic weaseling in order not to completely alienate the traditional marriage crowd, in order to get elected. If I'm wrong and they actually evolved, I'm glad to see that too.

So to answer your question -- I'm fine with both candidates. My point is, I see a different standard being applied to one than the other.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

So to answer your question -- I'm fine with both candidates. My point is, I see a different standard being applied to one than the other.

Well actually, it doesn't.

Your post seemed to suggest that you believed the slow pace of change in Sanders' stance was based on political expediency, which I supposed was in contrast to a sincere change in his beliefs.

I wanted to know if a sudden change would have been more convincing to you as far as his sincerity was concerned.

 

[varwoche]

Well actually, it doesn't.

Your post seemed to suggest that you believed the slow pace of change in Sanders' stance was based on political expediency, which I supposed was in contrast to a sincere change in his beliefs.

I wanted to know if a sudden change would have been more convincing to you as far as his sincerity was concerned.

I'm not sure -- I'd need more to go by.

 

[varwoche]

For myself, it comes down to a handful of primary issues, where Sanders' positions and policies more closely mirror my own ...

A typical pseudo-progressive stance, which is to be expected from supporters of the Sanders/Clinton/Cheney war machine.

(This snark inspired by the Clinton=Cheney nonsense that has actually been peddled here.)

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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.

Look, either you're with pigeonholing nuanced positions on complex issues into boxes small enough for their slogans to fit onto bumper stickers and eight second sound bites for the purpose of aggregating support, or you're against it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Look, either you're with pigeonholing nuanced positions on complex issues into boxes small enough for their slogans to fit onto bumper stickers and eight second sound bites for the purpose of aggregating support, or you're against it.

I'd love that on a bumpersticker.

Or a button.

 

[Mike!]

Look, either you're with pigeonholing nuanced positions on complex issues into boxes small enough for their slogans to fit onto bumper stickers and eight second sound bites for the purpose of aggregating support, or you're against it.

I'd love that on a bumpersticker.

Or a button.

A button with a button, that when pushed, produces an eight second sound bite!

 

[Trakar]

A button with a button, that when pushed, produces an eight second sound bite!

would that make it a sound byte?

 

[TragicMonkey]

A button with a button, that when pushed, produces an eight second sound bite!

Or a hawk screech!

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I'd love that on a bumpersticker.

Or a button.

This is pretty close.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is pretty close.

Love the "this thing should fly by now" bumper sticker.

 

[uke2se]

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.

Why does the party suddenly matter? If it did, you would have no problem voting for Hillary if she gets the nom.

Skickat från min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why does the party suddenly matter? If it did, you would have no problem voting for Hillary if she gets the nom.

That's tortured logic. I can and do reject candidates because I disagree with their parties; that doesn't necessarily mean I have to accept candidates because I don't disagree their parties.

 

[varwoche]

delete

 

[uke2se]

That's tortured logic. I can and do reject candidates because I disagree with their parties; that doesn't necessarily mean I have to accept candidates because I don't disagree their parties.

So it's more important to you that a person you don't like in a party you do don't become president than a party and person who doesn't like you does?

Skickat från min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

 

[TragicMonkey]

So it's more important to you that a person you don't like in a party you do don't become president than a party and person who doesn't like you does?

No, that's not what I said. If I don't share a party's values then any of their candidates are tainted. That rules out voting for Green Party or Republican Party candidates for me. What's left is the Democrats, but even if don't dislike that party (as much) that won't make me vote for their candidates simply because they are their candidates. In other words, with me the party can count against a candidate, but not for them. If Sanders ran as a Green I wouldn't vote for him.

 

[Dog Town]

So it's more important to you that a person you don't like in a party you do don't become president than a party and person who doesn't like you does?

Skickat från min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

Tough parse!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Huh.... to not vote for a candidate even tgough you lile the party... i dont see much thats weird about it. I would rather see a republican in power... but if donald trump is the nominee i'm sure as hell not voting for him.

 

[uke2se]

No, that's not what I said. If I don't share a party's values then any of their candidates are tainted. That rules out voting for Green Party or Republican Party candidates for me. What's left is the Democrats, but even if don't dislike that party (as much) that won't make me vote for their candidates simply because they are their candidates. In other words, with me the party can count against a candidate, but not for them. If Sanders ran as a Green I wouldn't vote for him.

But what I said would be the result of a sufficient amount of people thinking like you do. I don't understand how you can risk bigotry and war because you dislike a person.

Skickat från min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

 

[uke2se]

Tough parse!

I thought it was poetic in a certain way.

Skickat från min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk